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

[Lisa Rein <lisarein AT finetuning.com>]

nice breakdown chris!

still not sure what the correct answers are, but thanks for the effort 
it must have taken to break this down!

lisa


On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 09:41  PM, Chris Grigg wrote:

> Of course, but looking at it from the perspective of the CC licensing 
> framework -- a set of orthogonal options, each clearly defined -- the 
> overall message of this license is way more complicated than just 
> "transformations required".  In fact, the combination is more 
> complicated than any of the existing CC license terms: "I offer you 
> (anybody) a license to re-use this work (i.e. in derivative works), 
> but only under the following conditions: 1) attribution required, 2) 
> transformative usage required, 3) commercial usage permitted but 
> advertising of other products prohibited."
>
> 1) is covered by an existing CC license clause, no problem
>
> 2) is new, so we need a name for this.  Not too hard -- cut & paste, 
> etc.
>
> 3) covers ground that an existing CC license clause (non commercial) 
> already covers, but with the opposite answer (commercial use good), 
> and with a carve-out (ads bad).  That's messy.  Don't we also need to 
> separate this part out and find a name for it, so it can be offered as 
> an alternative to Non Commercial, i.e. "No Ads"?  Otherwise the 
> overall Sampling clause couldn't be combined with the Non Commercial 
> clause.
>
>
> So I'm thinking maybe this whole thing should just be structured 
> differently. Instead of the current license options...
>
>         Require Attribution:        Yes | No
>         Allow Commercial Use: Yes | No
>         Allow Modifications:       Yes | Only if Share Alike | No
>
> ...you could have -- or might need to have -- something more like this:
>
>         Require Attribution:                   Yes | No
>         Allow Commercial Use:            Yes | No
>         Allow Advertising Use:             Yes | No
>         Modifications of your work:      Allowed | Require | No
>         Derivatives Must Share Alike:  Yes | No
>
> So one new choice, and one restructured choice, pulling Share Alike 
> out into a separate Y/N option.  In this scenario, the 'Sampling 
> License' we've been discussing would be Yes, Yes, No, and Require; 
> note that this way, Share Alike could be answered either way.
>
>         -- Chris G.
>
>
> At 7.03p -0700 2003.09.15, Lisa Rein wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I think the point is to *require* transformations. Not to make them 
> > an option.
> >
> > So as not to allow people to re-release songs without really 
> > contributing anything to them in the resulting derivative work.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > lisa
> >
> >
> > On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 06:57  PM, Chris Grigg wrote:
> >
> > > OK, so I just looked at the CC For-Dummies cartoon 
> > > (http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/comics1  etc.), and 
> > > thought I should offer that it seems like what we're after, staying 
> > > consistent with CC vocabulary (esp. "No Derivative Works"), seems 
> > > more like "No Non-Transformative Derivative Works," or, to invert 
> > > that into a shorter and positive construction, "Only Transformations 
> > > OK," or "Transformations Only".  Obviously those are awkward, but 
> > > maybe we can find a more graceful way of saying the same thing?
> > >
> > > "Transformations OK" is nicer, but doesn't say anything about the 
> > > non-transformative cases.  You need to retain both the meaning that 
> > > transformative derivatives are OK, and that non-transformative 
> > > derivatives aren't.  Ideas...?
> > >
> > >         -- Chris G.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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