Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Friday 23 December 2011 13:29:39 Greg London wrote:
> An "early release" license makes sense for a work that starts out
> noncommercial and/or noderivative and after some number of years becomes
> CC-BY or public domain.
>
> There is no "commons" in NC or ND.  so an early release license would not
> take anything away from any commons, but would allow creators to commit to
> some shorter time frame where it WILL enter the commons via CC-BY.
>
> Works that tend to have many many derivatives can keep all those
> derivatives in the commons with ShareAlike. But works that tend not to have
> lots of derivatives can see little functional difference between SA and
> something like CC-BY.
>
> CC-BY is still a *contribution* to the commons. It simply allows
> derivatives to ne taken out of the commons.  But the original remains.
>
> Which is where something like an early release license would *contribute*
> to a commons by allowing creators to release the work to CC-BY after some
> number of years.

Why the assumption everywhere that someone wanting to put an NC option on 
their work would would prefer to go to BY rather than BY-SA after X years? If 
they are so interested in the commercial value of their work to put an NC on 
it in the first place, would they not find it more attractive to retain the 
chance of an income from that work after they finally put it in the commons. 
An income from those who then want to take derivatives/adaptations (and 
hopefully "inclusions" - I really need to settle on a term to use for my 
proposed stronger/more general copyleft for the upcoming license) of it out 
of the commons after the donation?
>
> It is most specifically for people who want their work to be noncommercial
> and/or noderiv, but would ne willing to commit to releasing it to CC-BY
> after some number of years.  Without the early release, it will most likely
> remain NC ND.
>
> Greg

all the best,

drew
>
> Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>
> To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Fri, Dec 23, 2011 18:07:58 GMT+00:00
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Time limited CC licenses for version 4.0?
>
> On 23/12/11 07:34, Javier Candeira wrote:
> > I can publish my work with a note that says: "if you receive this work
> > before date X, it's cc-by-nc, and if it's after date X, it's
> > cc-by-sa". We don't need new licenses. At most, we need new deeds, if
> > at all.
>
> We also don't need to gift a future CC with a moral panic when
> everyone's CC+7 (or whatever) works are about to enter the public domain.
>
> Founders' Copyright may not have seen mass adoption but it was certainly
> promoted and some of CC's critics (honestly or not) confused it with
> CC's main licences.
>
> The market has already rejected this idea IMO, and it doesn't build a
> commons *now*.
>
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community