Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Andres Guadamuz <anduril13 AT gmail.com>]

I've had experience porting CC licences in two jurisdictions, and I can 
attest to the fact that it is much easier to port from BY-NC-SA. It is 
easier to discuss a licence that has all the elements already, and then 
work backwards from the final text of that licence into the other 5 
documents.

I tried briefly to do a discussion on 6 licences during the drafting of 
the Costa Rican port, and it was a nightmare to keep track of everything.

Andres

On 09/04/2012 15:33, Diane Peters wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
>
> To the contrary, this is not our intention at all. The fact that we
> published BY-NC-SA as the draft for review has nothing to do with a
> preference for NC licenses over any of the others, and everything to do
> with the reality that BY-NC-SA contains all the elements of the other 5
> licenses.[1] At this early stage in the process, we felt that publishing
> one license with all of the elements was better than producing all six
> given the number of open issues that will need to be carried through to
> the others. Those on this list who have gone through the porting process
> are well familiar with the exercise of mechanically building the licenses.
>
> That said, it’s true that it could be misinterpreted as such for those
> who work primarily with BY and BY-SA.Again, this wasn’t our intention,
> but I should have made that more clear.Thanks for calling attention to this.
>
>
> Diane
>
>
> [1]  The exceptions are the definition of Creative Commons Compatible
> License, and including a reference to that in the SA clause.  For
> details see:
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_1#Provisions_for_other_Licenses_in_the_Suite
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ben Finney
> <bignose+hates-spam AT benfinney.id.au
> <mailto:bignose%2Bhates-spam AT benfinney.id.au>> wrote:
>
>     Diane Peters <diane AT creativecommons.org
>     <mailto:diane AT creativecommons.org>>
>     writes:
>
>      > Thanks for raising this.   As you know, BY-SA is derived from
>     BY-NC-SA
>      > Draft 1, but with NC provisions removed and the relevant SA-related
>      > provisions added.
>
>     That's rather distressing. Why is the non-free NC clause given such
>     primacy in the process?
>
>     How can we convince you to focus primarily on free-culture licenses,
>     like CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, and derive the non-free licenses (if people
>     want them) from those free licenses?
>
>     --
>       \        “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one
>     must |
>       `\      not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.” |
>     _o__)                                                 —Albert Einstein |
>     Ben Finney
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Diane M. Peters, General Counsel
> Creative Commons
> cell: +1 503-803-8338
> skype:  peterspdx
> email:diane AT creativecommons.org <mailto:email%3Adiane AT creativecommons.org>
> http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters
>
> ______________________________________
>
> Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal
> advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal
> advice.  Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice. You
> need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons tools for your
> particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate legal
> advice from a licensed attorney.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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