Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Kat Walsh <kat AT creativecommons.org>]

We'll be closing this comment period at the end of the day today
(11:59 Pacific Time), so if you have any last minute comments, please
make them soon.


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Kat Walsh <kat AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
> We are most of the way through our consultation period for the process
> and criteria, which we will be wrapping up on the 28th, and publishing
> in early June.
>
> Based on the feedback we have received so far, here are the things we
> are planning:
>
> 1. We are not going to be specific about the attribution requirements
> of a candidate license: we will evaluate these in a public process on
> a case-by-case basis. (We have one more request to raise in its
> thread.)
>
> 2. We will not require that candidate licenses address ETMs in the
> same way that the CC licenses do. A candidate license should address
> this somehow, but this may be handled differently, or may even be
> implied by other terms in the license rather than explicit.
>
> 3. We are planning to allow one-way compatibility. The strongest
> argument is that many people in our community want the ability to
> remix with GPL works, which is otherwise legally uncertain. Barring
> very strong arguments against or widespread opposition, this will be
> permitted. However, because of the considerable trade-offs involved
> (as identified by many of you in the relevant thread), there will be a
> high barrier to meet for one-way compatible licenses. These will be
> considered where there is high demand or some other specific need, but
> otherwise CC may reject these candidates.
>
> 4. Though there is broad agreement about the undesirability of license
> proliferation, positions are mixed on how to consider vanity licenses.
> We will evaluate these requests on a case-by-case basis, but will
> consider it within our discretion to reject a compatibility candidate
> on this basis alone.
>
> We are also adding a statement that CC may change the process and
> criteria at any time, provided that we also have a public consultation
> before any changes are made; we may find additional areas for
> refinement after the first few candidate licenses are considered, and
> want to allow for the possibility of addressing these.
>
> The changes we've made to the draft document are visible here:
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ShareAlike_compatibility_process_and_criteria&diff=97751&oldid=97633
>
> This draft is still open until May 28, and we welcome further comment.
>
> Alongside the SA compatibility process and criteria, we will also
> publish the revised version of the Compatible Licenses page, which is
> specified in the license text as where compatible licenses must be
> listed. A draft is up on the wiki, and we welcome feedback on it:
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Compatible_licenses_page_draft
>
> ----
>
> Here is a summary of the feedback received on the open questions:
>
> Attribution:
>
> There should be adequate room for differences in attribution
> requirements, as requiring exact alignment would present too high a
> bar. Candidate licenses should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
>
> ETMs:
>
> This restriction should not need to be present in a candidate license
> in the same form as in the CC license, especially because we don't
> have evidence of its effectiveness here. Candidate licenses should
> have an approach, but not necessarily the same one--for example,
> allowing parallel distribution.
>
> One-way compatibility:
>
> There have been many expressions that this should be possible, but
> also many expressions of concern about the tradeoffs involved. One
> proposal was that this should be permitted, but only with a high
> barrier to consideration: specific need, low impact, high demand, or
> other such considerations.
>
> In particular, there is strong demand for compatibility with the GPL,
> which is otherwise legally uncertain, and one commenter mentioned
> having to use GPL for content which was otherwise better suited to
> BY-SA if there was any possibility they would want to remix with GPL
> works in the future.
>
> The example of GFDL to BY-SA compatibility was given as one where
> one-way compatibility had happened with general agreement; the time
> limit created special circumstances but the example could generalize.
> Another raised the same example as evidence that this makes the
> license irrelevant, as GFDL has faded out. The examples of CC BY and
> BY-NC, which are widely one-way compatible, were raised as
> counterexamples.
>
> Perhaps the largest concern is that one-way compatibility may further
> fragment the commons. Dual-licensing was proposed as a solution, but
> this was argued to create fragmentation with more undesirable effects,
> as a remixer could choose the more lax of the two licenses to comply
> with (whereas under one-way compatibility, the remixed work would be
> under the less lax of the two.) However, this concern presents a
> strong argument for limiting the allowability to cases where
> compatibility solves an existing fragmentation problem.
>
> One comment raised the possibility of simply designating the GPL as
> the next version of BY-SA; because many of its requirements aren’t
> suited to the uses of many of the communities using BY-SA, we will not
> be pursuing this option.
>
> Vanity licenses:
>
> There is broad agreement that license proliferation, especially
> proliferation of vanity licenses, is undesirable, but not broad
> agreement on what to do about it: fighting them may be worthwhile, but
> may be counterproductive. A possible solution proposed was to place a
> blanket ban; another was to consider them on a case-by-case basis.
>
> -Kat
>
>
> --
> Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
> IM/IRC/@/etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
> Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
> California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
> CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
> please consult your attorney.



-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/@/etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.