Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>]

+1 for all the points raised by Christopher here. i really think that making 
the licenses more complex (which is what adam's suggestion comes down to) is 
the solution the legitimate concerns that Adam raises. Personally i am a 
strong believer in the relatively simple approach of asking people for a 
different format if the one at hand does not suit my needs. works more often 
then not. i simply do not believe that all transaction can be pre-empted by 
imposing legal requirements. in reality a source requirement would be 
beneficial to a relatively small group of users while it makes licensing 
material much more difficult for the big majority of people willing to share 
their works. /paul 


On 6 Apr 2012, at 21:29, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:

> Hi Adam,
> 
> I agree that in many ways source requirements in CC licenses would be
> great (at least in CC BY-SA).  However, I think it's also very complex,
> and thus unlikely to be implementable in 4.0, or maybe really ever
> appropriate in the legalcode of CC licenses.
> 
> In software we have a clear definition for what is and isn't source
> code, and modifiability of software isn't really possible without
> source.  It's not as true with content, which is more of a gradient.
> 
> Your example of open textbooks is a good example of when not providing
> the "source" files is problematic.  However, I can't imagine ways to
> make all the following situations equal:
> 
> - So, the Blender Foundation releases Elephants Dream, and let's assume
>   it's under a CC licenses that does include a source requirement.
>   They do release all the source files.
>   - Someone makes a remix from the .blend files.  Are they obligated to
>     release the source files?
>   - Someone makes a remix from the fully rendered film, a music video
>     or something.  In this case, they never even touched the original
>     .blend files at all, may have not even encountered them.  Are they
>     obligated to release gigabytes of source materials that they never
>     even touched in making their remix?
> - If I release a PNG, should I have to release my accompanying GIMP or
>   Photoshop files?  Those are the optimal verisons, but what if I
>   didn't keep them?  What also if someone makes a remix... do they also
>   have to distribute my original .xcf files?
> 
> I agree that it's unfortunate that we can have something where someone
> can claim to be an open publshing org and etc and actually not release
> things in a way that's actually easy for people to make derivatives
> from.  But as far as I can tell it's simply too hard to draft legalcode
> that's not incredibly hard to comply with for many cases of users, or
> which ends up being so vague that it ends up being basically useless or
> completely ignored.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> - Chris
> 
> adam <adam AT xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> With the new licenses is it possible to ask for the source to be 
>> provided in works that are licensed to allow derivatives? I know this 
>> issue mainly from the field of books. Now that open publishing (etc) is 
>> gaining enormous popularity I see more and more 'open books' made 
>> available in PDF only or mobi only formats etc.
>> 
>> GPL requires source as a pre-condition for 3 of its 4 freedoms I believe 
>> and I think that is for good reason. Derivatives require source. Without 
>> source derivatives are not realistic possibilities and PDF or other 
>> releases are nothing more than a 'mechanical' form of copyright protection.
>> 
>> I would actually like to see a source requirement in ND as well since it 
>> is impossible to transcode/transform into other formats sometimes 
>> without it. I am guessing that would be a less popular position however.
>> 
>> I also understand source doesnt apply to all media equally. However a 
>> 'where applicable the source must be provided in a standardised and 
>> reusable format' would help matters a lot...
>> 
>> 
>> adam
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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