Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Gunnar Wolf <gwolf AT gwolf.org>]

Sarah Pearson dijo [Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:45:07AM -0700]:
> Hi Gunnar,
> 
> Thanks for the question. The time-limited proposal was not addressed in the
> initial draft for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, our thinking was
> that this solution would introduce significant complexity into the
> licenses. We also noted that we already have the CC+ mechanism, which
> enables licensors to grant additional permissions beyond those built into
> the standard license terms.

Hummm... Right, the CC+ scheme allows for a fine-grained set of extra
permission grants, and it is very important. One point it does not
cover, though, and I'd like to push is visibility: CC is in a
privileged position to bring some points forward in a wide debate
towards copyright reform/changes.

The fact that makes it important for many of us to have the
time-limited terms is that copyright term duration is (1) too long and
(2) inconsistent worldwide. By allowing authors to specify shorter
terms, it will be obvious either that we are answering to a genuine
claim (and copyright terms have to be reduced), or that nobody cares
about it (and people that think like me should understand we are
losing our time) ;-)

Yes, the reason is political and not legal/technical. But so is CC's
existence, and even if the different participants of this discussion
have very varied viewpoints, I think this particular point had debate
on the implementation details, not on the importance of it being
incorporateed. (again, I might be having selective short-sightedness,
but that's at least my impression).

I will check and possibly add this to the page you mention.