Development of the Creative Commons Sampling license (or license option)

["Christopher M. Kelty" <ckelty AT rice.edu>]

concerning (2) and compatibility:

if I decide to use a work issued under a CC share-alike license as
part of my collage (or any other GPL style license), can I release the
collage under the sampling license?  Or do I have to go with the share
alike?

that is, is it clear in the main CC licenses whether they can be
sampled without activating the licence?

this comes out of my sense that more licenses is not always better,
and I'm not entirely convinced that the sampling license does
something sufficiently different from the CC licenses...

ck.

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 01:44:42PM -0800, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
> It seems we're more or less settled on the meat of the sampling language,
> but we have to figure out (1) this warranty and third-party rights issue;
> (2) how this license fits in the overall CC model.
> 
> Issue (1) is something our board is talking about right now. There's been
> discussion about this re: all our licenses, and I think we'll have some
> decision soon. So let's hold off on that for now.
> 
> (2) We haven't talked much about how the license will fit in the overall
> model. Here are my thoughts: first what I think CC policy should be, and
> second, why.
> 
> The sampling license should be a stand-alone specialty license.  A user
> comes to CC, clicks choose license, and sees pretty much the same menu of
> choices they see there today:    <http://creativecommons.org/license/>.
> But they also see, prominently flagged next to this menu, a list of our
> "specialty licenses": sampling, education, developing nations, founders
> copyright. 
> 
> Let's say the user then clicks on "sampling." My ideal is that this is a
> standard license with no options: 
> Attribution is always required (BY:), and commercial use is permitted
> only for transformative works (sampling, mash-ups, etc.); "share alike"
> is not an option, and "no derivative works" is obviously not an option.
> 
> Here's why:
> 
> a) More options aren't necessary. Offering a commercial-noncommercial
> option in the sampling license wouldn't make sense. Right now, if you
> wanted to allow any commercial use of your work, including derivatives
> and verbatim copies, you could simply use any of our current licenses
> that 1) don't specify "noncommercial" and 2) allow derivative works. The
> whole point of this license is refining that noncommerical provision to
> allow commercial transformations but not commercial verbatim copying.
> 
> Also, 99% of our users now require Attribution, and Negativland has
> seemed keen on requiring it, too. I like the idea.
> 
> b) Simplicity. I like our main menu of options right now and want it to
> remain pretty stable and simple. The more options we throw into that
> menu, the more confusing, time-consuming, and complicated the licensing
> process gets.  So let's stick with our "a la carte" menu, and offer a
> separate "prix fixe" menu next to it.
> 
> --Glenn
> 
> ---------------------
> Glenn Otis Brown
> Executive Director
> Creative Commons
> glenn AT creativecommons.org
> +1.650.723.7572 (telephone)
> +1.415.336.1433 (mobile)
> _______________________________________________
> cc-sampling mailing list
> cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling