Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 27 December 2011 00:54:03 Greg London wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> Because they figure they can make enough money
> in X years to justify the work they put into
> creating it, and they are committing to their
> readers that after X years they will release
> the work to CC-BY.
>
> Telling your readers that you are licensing
> the work NOW to be CC-NC-something, but also
> committing to them NOW that you will release
> the work to CC-BY after X years have passed,
> is a committment that will get some readers
> attentions.

And doing the exact same thing with CC-BY-SA in place of the example's CC-BY 
would not get the attention of those same readers for some reason?
>
> > of the commons after the donation?
>
> First of all, if you are refering to CC-NC-ANYTHING as
> being in a "commons", please stop.

This email is a bit confusing as you have no top indicating who you are 
replying to. I think it is me due to what I replied to further above but this 
bit about referring to any NC work as being in the commons would not be me. 
If you think it is what I am doing, please re-read my stuff carefully and see 
if perhaps you were mistaken in your first reading. If you think you were not 
mistaken, please let me know what I wrote that makes you draw that 
conclusion. (Perhaps I "miswrote"?)

I certainly do not consider anything with an NC or an ND to be in any commons 
that I call a commons.

> And if you really 
> want to argue that CC-NC-ANYTHING is actually *in* a
> commons, then whatever you think you're doing with
> CC licenses, I don't want to support the mangling
> of the language that comes with it.  I don't have
> a problem with people selling works All Rights Reserved
> if they want to, but I do have a problem with people
> mangling the term "commons" to convince themselves or
> others that they're doing something they're not.
>
> Second of all, the point is that the author would
> use this license to put the work under some more
> strict license first, giving them some time to
> exclusively sell the work, but then they commit
> *ahead of time* that they will release the work
> to CC-BY after some number of years, telling their
> readers that they don't need the Life-Plus-70 terms
> to find sufficient incentive to creaet the work
> in the first place.

I get the second point and I think BY-SA will be fine for that as well as BY 
or perhaps CC0.

I do think if that road is going to seriously be considered though that 
perhaps we need to go deeper. Perhaps when doing so we need to build in 
things like:

No statutory damages persued against living, breathing, humans. (Perhaps when 
dealing with the same. So, no fronting corporations by humans allowed?)

all the best,

drew