Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Maciej Pendolski
<beholder0x100 AT gmail.com> wrote:
> My personal preference is for CC-BY-NC-SA in which NC would apply only
> to tangible media. So printed books, music CDs, film DVDs, ... could
> be only sold by or on behalf of a creator while "virtual" versions of
> those (e-books, mp3 files, ...) would be handled pretty much like they
> were licenced under CC-BY-SA. I have no idea if this could be
> implemented.

Special accounting for tangible media is a bit of a throwback to
pre-CC licenses, in particular the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Publication_License and to a far
lesser extent the FDL. I can't see how it would've become even more
relevant over the past decade. :)

...

I'm also pasting one email in the moderation queue that arrived as I
was sending previous post which concerns general [de]merits of NC. I'd
encourage followups to cc-community unless they address 4.0
specifically...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam AT benfinney.id.au>
To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Cc:
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:21:45 +1100
Subject: Re: CC licenses version 4.0: some thoughts on noncommercial
Heather Morrison <hgmorris AT sfu.ca> writes:

> Noncommercial, to me, is NOT the most restrictive of the CC license
> elements, except in a technical sense. This is because noncommercial -
> the public sphere - is the very essence of the commons.

That's a false equivalence. Much of the activity in “the public sphere”
is commercial activity. Denying commercial use for a work denies a great
many public-good activities.

Do you think vocational artists are never part of the public sphere
<URL:http://questioncopyright.org/vocationalism>? On what basis do you
exclude their commercial activities?

<URL:http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/10/20/creative-commons-branding-confusion/>

> As a long-term open access advocate, my considered opinion is that the
> strongest license for open access to scholarly works is CC-BY-NC-SA,
> as this is the license that most protects open access downstream.

That seems an unfounded position. How can denying commercial use protect
open access *more than* not denying that use?

Do you think there cannot be open commercial use?

Rather, ‘CC-BY-SA’, being a true copyleft, protects downstream open
access the most.

I am in agreement with <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC> the
Freedom Defined project in their reasonas against a non-commercial
clause.

The simplest reason is: selling free works is an excellent way of
funding more free works, and (since the work is free) is not harmful.

> Many thanks to CC for great work advancing the commons over the past
> few years, and for the opportunity to participate in discussions
> towards the next round.

Likewise.

--
 \     “Books and opinions, no matter from whom they came, if they are |
 `\     in opposition to human rights, are nothing but dead letters.” |
_o__)                                                  —Ernestine Rose |
Ben Finney