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

[Don Joyce <dj AT webbnet.com>]

Something like:
"This license strongly encourages that, where possible, the 
attribution of sources be stated in any work that benefits from the 
use of samples or appropriation."
DJ





>  Personally, while i philasophically and  ethically  like the idea 
> of attribution, I dont want to see it be required. It should be 
> strongly  encouraged but left as a choice. Is there a way we could 
> do that?? Making it a rule leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sounds 
> too bossy and rules are meant to be broken! Whattya all think?
>
> Glenn - I am forgetting why "no derivative works" would not be an 
> option. Can you explain that again?
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:44:42 -0800
>  "Glenn Otis Brown" <glenn AT creativecommons.org> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-sampling mailing list
> cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling