Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-sampling - Re: [cc-sampling] What Is The Point Of This List?

cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Don Joyce <dj AT webbnet.com>
  • To: creative commons license list <cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-sampling] What Is The Point Of This List?
  • Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:05:04 -0700



I rather think it is not so necessary to have a lot of legally workable boiler plate behind a license like this that attempts to release re-use from the constraints of law. At its extreme of options, the Cut & Paste license is all about casting off laws, not piling them on. I'm not sure what all legal boilerplate is really necessary to do this, the opposite concern of most legalese.

The CC public domain license is the easiest to understand by far, without much legalese at all, because it's forsaking existing legalese by purpose. The Cut & Paste license should strive to be similarly clear, even with all the 'legal defining" options added to it.
DJ





Hi, Don: I think you're probably thinking the legalese will vary
considerably from the general license legalese? Maybe the legalese will
be pretty consistent, the boiler-plate, and all. The name, and the
categories for the sampling license, on the other hand, are only about
four or five terms, right?
Thanks,
Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/

On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 18:14, Don Joyce wrote:
I would like to see it all (all the wording) layed out on screen,
distilled from whatever ideas we've had, and then invite rewritings
of all the specific wording to suit the masses.

I don't know how it can ever be paired down by remaining conceptual
until we supposedly arrive at a conclusion/concensus that can be
written down.

It all needs to be boiled down to a specific set of objectionable
phrases we can then tweak, transform, or delete.

DJ






>>Round and round is good. We have time. Discussion is fine.
>>
>>Like I said, I'm happy to take all these names to the team, and I'll do
>>so on an ongoing basis.
>
>
>Yes but if we are all spending time discussing names and then they
>are just taken to a team who pick one then it is hardly a legitimate
>and participatory method of choosing the name. Why not start to
>narrow the field, or somehow allow us to take stock of what we are
>talking about, otherwise this is starting to resemble a talking shop
>that gives the *impression* of participation but lacks any real
>power.
>
>It certainly makes me wonder what the point of contributing if there
>is no end in sight and newbies start us right at the beginning
>again.. There surely needs to be some structure to how we are
>forming some kind of consensus or decision..
>
>Indeed, there are multiple levels to this discussion, my
>understanding (possibly misplaced) was that we were able to not just
>*influence* with its implications of a small group of technocratic
>'experts' distilling the ideas into 'sensible' solutions. But more
>radically we could direct, write and hey maybe even name the license
>so that it reflected the needs and wishes of musicians rather than
>lawyers... and who is best to make the decisions if about a license
>that is for musicians to use... not the lawyers thats for sure!
>
>And that's not to say I disagree with discussion, its just
>unstructured, never ending, non-chaired, round and round discussion
>that I have a problem with...
>
>David meme
>
>
>--------THE OPEN SOURCE RECORD LABEL--------
>
>L O C A R E C O R D S
>Stick to What You Don't Know?
>
> http://www.locarecords.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page