Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT gondwanaland.com>]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Anthony <osm AT inbox.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Valentin Villenave
> <valentin AT villenave.net> wrote:
>> "Derivation Rights Reserved" is a brillant idea.
>
> And "Proprietary Derivation Rights Reserved" for SA?

Hoarding.

> Non-attribution rights reserved for BY?

BY -> ARR
BY-NC -> ACRR
BY-NC-ND -> ACDRR
BY-NC-SA -> ACHRR
BY-ND -> ADRR
BY-SA -> AHRR


On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:56 AM, 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.
>
> I would also argue in favour of vagueness in some cases over clarity. 
> Creative Commons is about sharing. The concept of sharing is vague, and not 
> understood the same way by everyone. This is true of all abstract concepts, 
> like love, justice, and peace. Some of our best work happens in the realm 
> of the vague - this is the space for expanding our thinking about some very 
> important matters, such as sharing our work rather than locking it down.

Copyheart-NC: ♡ Copying is an act of love, not money. Please copy,
adapt and share noncommercially.

Compare with copyheart.org


...


Somewhere between 5% and 95% seriousness on each reply above; I can't
decide toward which end.


...


I'm not enthusiastic about NC->CRR. I'm not sure it's more accurate;
depends on what angle you're looking at -- commercial permissions not
granted might be even "better". And it's just a name, doesn't address
vagueness of actual definition in the license, nor does it address
non-free/open/interoperability within the CC 4.0 license suite, nor
does it do anything, again beyond naming, to make NC/CRR licenses more
feasible for mainstream/establishment publishers, labels, etc to
widely adopt, nor to improve its (almost non-existent so far, but I
imagine potential) attraction as a model for future copyright reform.

However, I see that both Valentin Villenave and Frances Pinter like
the CRR naming idea, so there must be something to it. 100% serious
about that. If libriste and publisher both can see an improvement,
maybe it is a new, slightly improved, local optimum.

Mike