Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Kim Tucker <kctucker AT gmail.com>]

imo ShareAlike should never be discussed in general. BY-SA and
BY-NC-SA are perpetuating different things (freedoms and restrictions
respectively - virtual opposites).

The wording in the two licenses in which SA is applicable should
reflect this to be clearer:

In BY-SA: SA invites anyone (including commercial entities) to use and
improve the resources freely, and assures that shared
improvements/derived works carry the same freedoms. One does not need
permission to mix adapt/modify and share freely in the libre sense
(free as in freedom).

[ii] in BY-NC-SA: SA insists that the complex and contentious NC
restrictions associated with the NC clause also apply to derived
works.

In practice, it becomes almost impossible to get permission to use and
share composite NC resources in any commercial way as commercial use
will mean different things to different contributors.

This becomes a problem when some of the billions of people becoming
connected in the next few decades need permission to help their
neighbours and communities. For example, to localise and
re-contextualise knowledge resources for local use - knowledge which
could potentially save lives and expedite digital inclusion. The
people doing this work have a right to make a living in this way -
providing services of localising, translating, re-contextualising and
disseminating knowledge in ways accessible to their communities.

Of course, there are situations in which an NC restriction is
applicable, but not clarifying this difference leads to over-use of NC
where it is not needed (and even harmful).

Related links which expand on this angle:

Re: "free in the libre sense":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre

Libre Cultural Works Definition:
http://freedomdefined.org/Libre

Re: NC Licenses Considered Harmful:
http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC

Say Libre:
http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre

Creative Commons license users need to free themselves from the
"property" mindset and disassociate the issues of freedom and price:
>From software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
To knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_knowledge
and
http://wikieducator.org/Libre_knowledge

Regarding the property mindset:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

Kim

On 4 April 2013 19:07, Heather Morrison <hgmorris AT sfu.ca> wrote:
> The current license choosers force a choice between NoDerivs and 
> Sharealike. These are not opposites, and there are occasions when it makes 
> sense to include both elements. For example, if an article is published it 
> might be reused as a whole work in a larger work (e.g. a chapter in a 
> book), in which case the author might want both ND and SA.
>
> Could this be addressed in the Version 4.0 license round? I'm not sure if 
> this is a legal matter or a question of how the license chooser is set up.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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