Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Kat Walsh <kat AT creativecommons.org>]

Comments on this are now closed--we'll be publishing the final
document early next week.

Cheers,
Kat

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Kat Walsh <kat AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
> 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.



-- 
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.