Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Gunnar Wolf <gwolf AT gwolf.org>]

Maciej Pendolski dijo [Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:57:55PM +0100]:
> 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.

Ugh, choosing a different set of licenses dpending of the medium on
which the contents are encoded is not only a very slippery slope, but
is clearly open to quick obsolescence. Whenever a new means of
reproduction/storage is invented, it'd have to be categorized either
by following similarities/parallels (which is open to all kinds of
misinterpretation or clever abuses) or by patching the license. Of
course, even in your current list, holes can be found. Charging you
for printing a copy of the PDF you gave me? Or storing it (long-term)
on reconfigurable e-paper which is not expected to change (however
impractical it'd seem)?

We need to make the licensors' lifes easier, and allow them for
license combinations which _make_sense_ easily. That has historically
been the CC "seal", and that what has made an arid licensing topic a
spectacular success widely recognized by non-legalminded creators worldwide.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature