Development of Creative Commons licenses

[pcreso AT pcreso.com]

I don't want to be paying the fees for the lawyers arguing over modified vs derived works. If some domains it may be clearer than others, a medley including a song is presueably derived but not modified. But with CC 4 intended to be "data friendly", it is difficult to distinguish between derived & modified when it comes to data & datasets. Is a spreadsheet with the sequence of columns or order of record derived or modified? As a functional dataset, there is no difference in content, despite the changes... sort of like changing page numbers in a published book.

Any wording needs to work across ALL the domains that CC licences are used.

Brent Wood

--- On Wed, 12/12/12, Valentin Villenave <valentin AT villenave.net> wrote:

From: Valentin Villenave <valentin AT villenave.net>
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Commercial Rights Reserved
To: "Development of Creative Commons licenses" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012, 9:56 AM

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you misread Valentin's message?  I believe the claim with
> respect to what authors actually *do* is that they actually reserve
> them; not that they put them primary in the commercial realm.

That is what I meant. (And of course, one should read "NC" instead of
"ND" in my former message.)

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Carlos Solís <csolisr AT riseup.net> wrote:
> Given that we're talking about Commercial Rights Reserved, why not talk about Derivation Rights Reserved as a clearer alternative to Non Derivatives? Perhaps some users may think that they're no longer allowed to edit their own works. Also it would give a more uniform labeling to restrictions currently considered non-free, not unlike the All Rights Reserved denomination.

"Derivation Rights Reserved" is a brillant idea. (The wording should
also emphasize the difference between Derivation and Modification:
creating a new, Derivative Work is _not_ the same as "Modifying the
existing Work". Too many people still think that’s what it means -- to
wit, rms' excuse for using -ND everywhere.)

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Heather Morrison <hgmorris AT sfu.ca> wrote:
> Noncommercial is not optimal either. However, from a language perspective it is better than "commercial rights reserved" because it gives the creator an opportunity to say that "this is outside of the commercial realm". Things that are outside of the commercial realm can be brought into it - however for some of us, expanding the portion of the world that is outside of commerce is a very important statement, and it's fine if it is vague.

"Outside of the realm" may sound nice from a philosophical point of
view, but this is a _legal_ document we’re talking about here. In my
opinion, "vagueness over clarity" is exactly the sort of things we
ought to avoid in this particular case; whilst I can certainly agree
that the world cannot be entirely defined with exact, black-and-white
legal notions, there is an argument to be made that "vagueness", once
you’re in a court of law, will systematically benefit the party with
the most numerous and overpaid lawyers.

Cheers,
Valentin.
_______________________________________________
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