×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Creative Commons Urged To Drop Non-Free Clauses In CC 4.0

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the your-definition-of-free-isn't-the-right-one dept.

Media 223

TheSilentNumber writes "A member of Students for Free Culture has just published a thorough and detailed post calling for the retirement of the non-free clauses, NoDerivatives (ND) and NonCommercial (NC). They state, 'The NC and ND clauses not only depend on, but also feed misguided notions about their purpose and function.' and that 'Instead of wasting effort maintaining and explaining a wider set of conflicting licenses, Creative Commons as an organization should focus on providing better and more consistent support for the licenses that really make sense.'" Note that the opinions expressed are of the author alone and not necessarily the entire organization. More info on the process of revising the CC licenses.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

223 comments

Newsworthy? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143157)

Someone posts a message about a license and this is somehow newsworthy?

Re:Newsworthy? (-1, Flamebait)

multiben (1916126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143199)

Why is it that the first post is always someone saying: "Yay, first post" or challenging the newsworthiness of the story. Maybe instead of sitting there jabbing the refresh button you should come back in a few hours time, and I'm sure there will be something worthy of your mighty attention.

Postworthy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143229)

Someone posts a message about a message complaining about a message about a license and this is somehow postworthy?

Re:Newsworthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143251)

Not newsworthy, just flamebait.
Some people just want to be able to give their works away for free and have them be shared.
They'll still want that whether or not the Creative Commons organization wrote the license for them.

Re:Newsworthy? (4, Interesting)

Volanin (935080) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143285)

Newsworth? I don't know. But absolutely Awarenessworth! Currently, more and more people are releasing their own music and videos under the CC licenses for our own free enjoyment, and also it's one of the greatest forces we have against the ever increasing stupidity of the big labels.

Re:Newsworthy? (5, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143619)

Which is why the Students for Free Culture wants to make it more daunting for artists to migrate to free licences by making it an 'all or nothing' deal. Brilliant way to shoot everyone in the foot, guys.

Activist movements need some shorthand for shaming idealists who rush the group's goals without consideration for gradual pragmatic change—like a dunce cap, only larger, and with flashing lights.

Re:Newsworthy? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143733)

We could call it the Richard M. Stallman award for activistic excellence.

Re:Newsworthy? (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143875)

I guess that would work within the realm of the free culture movement, but I was thinking even more generally. Any cause you can name—environmentalism, multiculturalism, gender equality, whatever—has overeager radicals who don't want (or know how) to balance their vision with public acceptance. They may not even be wrong about what they're talking about (I think a lot more people would agree with RMS in theory than in practice, for example), and yet they can do a horrendous amount of damage to their own public image. It's daunting to imagine how far back society's been set by the misanthropy of overenthusiasm.

Re:Newsworthy? (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144845)

Those extremists provide real value to their cause.

Pretend, for a moment, that society has to pick a number on a scale from 0-100. Right now, public opinion on average thinks the number should be around 40, and mainstream media generally considers it acceptable to discuss proposals that involve numbers as low as 25 and as high as 55. Now, suppose there's well-funded group A that thinks this number should be 0, and a well-funded group B that thinks this number should be 80, and both have legitimate and reasonable-sounding arguments for holding their respective position. If group A adopts the moderate approach, they'll advocate for 25. If group B adopts the extremist approach, they'll advocate for 80. If both groups have equally convincing arguments and can get their message out equally, the public opinion will shift not from 40 down to 25 but from 40 to 52, because group B has successfully convinced a significant number of people that it's reasonable and socially acceptable to think that numbers in the 55-80 range are right.

A practical example of this in action: 20 years ago, gay marriage or gay civil union was unthinkable in the US. In general, 'respectable' liberal political groups didn't want to touch the issue at all, because what was considered the range of acceptable opinion was a spectrum from "Ok, the police shouldn't be able to arrest gay people and throw them in jail for being gay" to "Beat 'em up and force them to be straight". But the less respectable gay rights folks kept up the pressure for gay marriage to be legal, as complete extremists and nutjobs for at least a decade. And by doing that, the idea started entering popular culture, and eventually got some political decisions going their way, and now is legal in many places and has the support of over half of Americans.

Re:Newsworthy? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144961)

Absolutely, when progress is hindered, activism, and perhaps of an extreme sort is necessary for any cause. I wish to heap blame on those who would rally prematurely, though, and in doing so endanger their movement. Extremism can be good, but jumping ahead out of turn harms everyone. At this point in the game, we're still convincing people that free culture is socially and economic viable—and this SfFC member is already calling for the CC to take on an exclusionist attitude toward people who are just dipping their toes in. That's not helping anyone; it's spiteful and downright moronic.

Re:Newsworthy? (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144981)

Zealotry. Call them by what they are. Zealots. Fanatacism to the point where there is no longer reason. Absolutism.

It's not a matter of vision and acceptance. It's a matter of imposing of The Way It Must Be upon people who don't see things quite the same way (everybody else). There are visions that do not involve the absolute. The Constitution embodies one such vision, the Republic that is the United States being its implementation. Not coincidentally, said vision is slowly being ripped apart by absolutism.

Re:Newsworthy? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41145377)

Unfortunately the concept of zeal disparages them for believing in their cause, and is an innate slur against other members of a given movement. A new word, more specific to the idea that they are acting against their own interests, is necessary. 'Radical', in my opinion, has the same problem, since it implies their belief is, again, more essential.

Re:Newsworthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144349)

Activist movements need some shorthand for shaming idealists who rush the group's goals without consideration for gradual pragmatic change

I think the term "Fanatic" works pretty well. Filled with excessive or single-minded zeal. Uncritical enthusiasm.

It's too obscure to use, but among Discworld fans you could call them "Shoes".

Re:Newsworthy? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144415)

Fanatic is OK from an external perspective, but I think to be maximally successful the word really needs to be something that can be uttered as an accusation within the group. Something along the lines of hyperopia, perhaps.

Re:Newsworthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143453)

Apparently it was newsworthy enough for you to read the article and then post on it....

What's a derivative work? (5, Interesting)

Compaqt (1758360) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143261)

One of the worrying things about using CC material is: What is a derivative work?

This matters for the viral/copyleft CC-SA (CC Share and Share Alike) license.

For example, if you have a web page, and you either excerpt or publish a full Wikipedia article, along with your other content, have you just given permission to people to use your content from that webpage?

Is the virality of the CC-SA limited just to the part which you excerpt, or the whole webpage, or your whole website?

I.e., you include some CC-SA material, and now your entire website is considered a "work", and it's a derivative. What if you also have GPL and GFDL stuff in the mix? Which license wins?

If you include CC-SA stuff on a CD, does the entire CD become CC-SA?

Re:What's a derivative work? (4, Interesting)

Raul654 (453029) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143345)

"have you just given permission to people to use your content from that webpage?" -- All creative commons licenses require you to post a notice that the covered material is licensed under X license (where X can be CC-BY-SA, or CC-BY, etc), and that such a statement must be made in a manner 'appropriate to the medium' or some such language. If you had a webpage, that would presumably require a statement and a link to the text of the license. If you fail to do that, you are in violation of the license and could be sued for copyright infringement. (At which point, you could claim fair use as your defense)

Re:What's a derivative work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143679)

Only if your use is fair use, otherwise you'd be just as infringing as if you were misappropriating any other creative work. The fact that it's a CC work would only get you out of the damages of misusing it, it wouldn't mean that you weren't infringing the copyright, because you were.

The damage to your reputation from losing the suit and the money you'd have to pay defending yourself would be more than enough to keep most folks honest.

Re:What's a derivative work? (1)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144821)

The fact that it's a CC work would only get you out of the damages of misusing it [...] The damage to your reputation from losing the suit and the money you'd have to pay defending yourself would be more than enough to keep most folks honest.

Damage to your reputation? What world do you live in? No one outside academia cares about anything but the monetary damages. In which case...

Well...

Sure! Insofar as I'd call you an idiot for bothering to defend yourself against a no-penalty infringement suit. "Yup, we did it, your honor. Deliberately. And at treble damages, that comes out to... Zero dollars! Can we just write you a check now for the next 365 days, since we plan to keep using this for the foreseeable future?"

Re:What's a derivative work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144887)

That's blatantly not true. If you're trying to make money in the arts and you're caught plagiarizing you can very easily see your entire career finished.

Sort of like that myth that's floating around that everybody cheats. That may be true in some parts of the world, but the fact of the matter that it's just a rationalization that's used. In this case nobody would ever go into court and say that as the plaintiff would still be entitled to court costs for taking it to court. And perhaps they're not so nice and decide to ask for statutory damages.

Re:What's a derivative work? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143349)

IANAL, but derivative work has a specific meaning and the web page wouldn't be considered a derivative work just by including an image from a CC-ND source. If you're using text and mixing it in with other text that would likely be derivative and as such be a violation. Although that depends upon how exactly you're using the text, you can as always use it as a citation subject to the usual rules.

I think the licenses should stay, they're not as free as opening them up for any and all use, but those licenses are useful for both people producing and people consuming work and should be available to the producer. Otherwise somebody else will just take the license or write one that's substantively the same for use.

Re:What's a derivative work? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143351)

All of this is already well understood within copyright law.

For example, if you have a web page, and you either excerpt or publish a full Wikipedia article, along with your other content, have you just given permission to people to use your content from that webpage?

No.

Is the virality of the CC-SA limited just to the part which you excerpt,

Yes.

or the whole webpage,

No.

or your whole website?

No.

I.e., you include some CC-SA material, and now your entire website is considered a "work", and it's a derivative.

No, it's not.

What if you also have GPL and GFDL stuff in the mix?

No impact.

Which license wins?

Each license applies as it did before you put them on the same site.

If you include CC-SA stuff on a CD, does the entire CD become CC-SA?

No.

Re:What's a derivative work? (4, Informative)

Svippy (876087) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143383)

As with any licence, I suppose, it is whatever you label with that licence that it becomes. A single thing (e.g. website, software program, etc.) can include parts that consists of multiple licences, which means the whole 'thing' cannot become one licence, unless altering one of its 'sub' licences does not violate that licence.

On Wikipedia, for instance, the software, i.e. MediaWiki (both server side and the default skins) is GPL, but the content (e.g. text, custom CSS, images, etc.) is CC-SA as you correctly noted. Unless, of course, wherever stated (a lot of images have a variety of licences).

Essentially, no licence wins, because if they cannot be converted to one another, your website has to be released under several licences. However, in general terms, a website appears under one licence, unless noted otherwise. As such, you may wish to include with your Wikipedia excerpt that it is CC-SA content.

I have no idea how much sense this post made, but essentially, it is not uncommon for a multitude of content to have a multitude of licences, even if within the same 'scope'/website/etc.

Re:What's a derivative work? (2)

kiore (734594) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144521)

Sorry to be pedantic, but the English language Wikipedia uses the CC-BY-SA license. The BY bit's important as it requires attribution. I'm not sure about other languages but the German and Scots version also seem to use the same license.

Re:What's a derivative work? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143427)

Feeding the troll:

First, if you need actual legal advice to this effect, consult a lawyer.

If you excerpt content within the restrictions of Fair Use, a license is not required. So no, your content is still yours.

Creating a work which is derivative of multiple other works means you need a license to each work. If those licenses are incompatible, you will, obviously, be committing copyright infringement. If one part is GPL, and another part has a license saying "you cannot show anyone your code", you can choose which to violate -- the GPL, or the other license -- by either providing your code under the GPL or refusing to distribute your code with your work. You could resolve this by ceasing distribution of your work, or working out other licensing terms with the owner(s) of one the works from which your work derives. You could also choose to violate both licenses by distributing some, but not all, of your code with your work. There is nothing magical about licenses that forces you to do something -- failing to follow them simply means you are committing copyright infringement. You can never be forced to license your work in a way you don't want to (though you may be liable for fines for infringement, in this case).

A CD could not possibly be considered a single work, unless it's one long audio track. That's like saying "if I download open office to my hard drive, are my family pictures now GPLed?!?!?!"

Excellent Question (4, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143485)

One of the worrying things about using CC material is: What is a derivative work?

That is an excellent question and one that directly relates to my use of the 'NC' licence. When releasing educational materials I'm happy with everyone getting to use them for free and sharing them with others but I do not want to see them get incorporated into a text book or used as supporting material for a textbook which publishers are charging students obscene prices for (especially as those prices are one of the primary motivations for making the material in the first place!).

While you might be able to argue that a textbook which incorporates pages of text and/or questions is a derivative work many publishers now offer flexible publishing options where you can pick and choose what chapters and sections of a book are included for your course. In such a case does all the book count as a derivative work or just the sections or chapters where they use CC content adapted to the book?

While the term 'non-commercial' might be ambiguous so is the term 'derivative works' so if ambiguity is an argument to drop the term both should be dropped. Personally I thing the argument for dropping the 'NC' clause is more to do with the author's political persuasions than any other argument given. I think keeping the option to give us a choice is important. Looking at open source there is clear support for both BSD-like and GPL-like licences. What is nice with CC is that it accommodates both camps under one umbrella. If they drop the 'NC' I predict a licence fork to fix the omission.

Re:Excellent Question (2)

chmod a+x mojo (965286) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144261)

I personally don't want the NC license gone. I currently release photos several places, my landscapes and random stuff is CC-ND-NC and my free stock is CC-NC with a request for sending my account a link of finished work. I don't see how removing the non-commercial clauses would be in any way shape or form beneficial.

Ditching the NC would mean I would have to use some other license OR come up with my own so people can't just take my stuff and give attribution to make money off of my work ( currently they have to BUY it if they are interested ).

Re:Excellent Question (2)

blackest_k (761565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144715)

Seems rather silly to me, it is a licence, or it isn't If it is then it can be used for as long as people see fit to use it.
Creating another licence minus the bits that some people think are not suitable for their needs is fine too. The original licence is still there and can be used. Licence your work as you see fit. It's your work and you choose how it should be distributed.

It seems a bit weasley to attempt to piggy back a different licence on the back of an existing widely known and widely used successful one. It always seems to be someone other than the author of the licensed work, who wants more favourable terms. It's a bit different with gpl v2 and gpl v3 in that with v2 it is possible to do an end run around the principles of GPL licensing.

  Show me the end run around the principles of cc licensing and how the proposed changes will protect the authors copyrights better than the existing version and then I can see a reason to change so far i'm unconvinced.
     

Only the GPL is viral... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143659)

Only the GPL is viral, because it states that if you use GPL code in a work, then the entire work must be licensed under the GPL. This has nothing to do with it being a derivative work and everything to do with the GPL wanting to spread itself. For example, if you take a GPL function, and modify it a bit, you've created a derivative work. However, if you simply copy and paste it into another file of code, you haven't created a derivative, you've merely included some GPL code in your file. Note that, if you'd instead copied some BSD-licensed code, you could simply keep that function under the BSD license and use whatever license you like for the code that you write. It's only the GPL which is viral because it insists that if you want to use any of its code, then you must choose the GPL as the license for your entire work.

Re:Only the GPL is viral... (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143783)

Nope.

"Assimilating" someone else's work is still going to yield derivative work.

This is something that is quite independent of the FSF. The FSF did not invent these concepts. They merely exploit them.

You can't just pretend that this is some sort of hippie inspired conspiracy.

You can't take someone else's work and pass it off as your own. The politics of your victim really don't matter.

What if I write notes in the margins of a book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144005)

What if I write notes in the margins of a book? Does that create a derivative work? What if I insert whole pages? At what point does it become illegal for me to resell the book?

I didn't say anything about passing someone else's work off as my own. I can use someone's code under a BSD license, toss it in the middle of one of my source files, and simply mark it with the BSD license, and state that it applies only to that portion of the file, and that the rest of the file is licensed under whatever license I want to put it under. The only reason I can't do that with GPL code is because the GPL requires me to license my entire work under the GPL.

Re:What if I write notes in the margins of a book? (1)

domatic (1128127) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144499)

BSD code is commonly incorporated in GPL works and the BSD licensed portions remain BSD. The work as a whole has to be distributed as GPL but any BSD components can be extracted from the source and otherwise distributed under BSD terms. This goes for any other component included under a GPL-compatible license. GPL-compatibility doesn't mean those components are "converted" or "relicensed" because copyright law doesn't allow that in the first place. GPL-compatibility is simply the lack of additional constraints the GPL doesn't impose. BSD works are also often incorporated into closed binaries but this still doesn't relicense the BSD source. You generally can't incorporate one of those in your source files either.

Re:Only the GPL is viral... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41145093)

GPL claims to have much greater powers of assimilation than mere copyright law, to the point where many have come around and consider the GPL to be an EULA and not merely "copyleft".

Re:Only the GPL is viral... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41145319)

You can't take someone else's work and pass it off as your own.

Good artist copy, great artists steal. (C) Anonymous Coward 2012

Same problem with a tune. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143727)

Or with software you saw source code to. Or rounded corners on your phone.

You see to answer your question "what is a derivative work?" you need to talk to someone who knows YOUR LEGAL SYSTEM. IF you feel it is unfair or obscure FIX YOUR LEGAL SYSTEM.

This is no more a problem with CC licensed work than it is the fault of Microsoft.

Re:What's a derivative work? (1)

ron_ivi (607351) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144033)

One of the worrying things about using CC material is: What is a derivative work?

Even worse, which you consider how long a chain of derivatives-of-derivitatives-of-derivitatives-of-derivitatives-of-derivitatives can be.

Pretty much every work of art is influenced by pretty much every work of art an artist has ever seen. Perhaps they should cite them all, just in case some of them were CC-SA?

No (4, Interesting)

mirix (1649853) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143311)

I like using NC for images, and I think people are a lot more likely to release their images under this (without this clause they may be less likely release them as CC at all, and just keep them closed).

I really dislike that wikipedia won't accept NC stuff, though.

Re:No (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143475)

I really dislike that wikipedia won't accept NC stuff, though.

Why? What's wrong with this?

Re:No (2)

mirix (1649853) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144793)

I would like to contribute photos to wikipedia, however I don't want Monsanto or Raytheon using them for an ad campaign. Something like this, anyway.

Re:No (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143569)

I agree completely. I also think that the example argument against the NC clause (i.e. advertisement based site) is not as complicated as they assume. Basically, I can choose whether or not I look at or follow ads on sites I visit (even the nasty flash hover-screenhoggers). Making making money from an ad is not the same as charging directly for the work or for a collection including the work. My test in this case: is the work itself being charged for?

Derivatives, on the other hand, can be a bitch. It really depends on the medium and use-case. For pictures, if you use my photo for a background image on an announcement flyer do I really care? No. Is it technically a derivative? Yes. But, is it OK to use my photos in one of those photo mosaics? I would still classify it as a derivative, but is it a recognizable derivative that would effect how people view my work? But, I would say that their example of a website using images is also far-fetched in my view. From my understanding, pictures, photos and figures can easily have different licenses if properly cited/marked.

Music is difficult because if the recording is under a given license, does the song itself follow the same license? I have some music up on soundcloud. Is a separate performance of my song a derivative, or is only the recording covered by the license (meaning anyone can re-record songs I wrote). If I remember right, I still hold implicit copyright to the song itself for some years, but it still seems kind of sketchy.

And then there's video and text to consider and what's common knowledge blah blah blah. I think I'll stop here for my own sanity.

Re:No (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#41145027)

I really dislike that wikipedia won't accept NC stuff, though.

They want to leave themselves the ability to capitalize on it.

And yes, you are absolutely correct. Most artists are OK with free as in beer, but not so OK with free as in speech. Especially when the entity that's most likely to capitalize on the work is probably going to be a large corporation.

I'd just call bullshit. (4, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143337)

If I say, make an art asset and post it to say, OpenGameArt, I have a choice of options.

I can list it as one of the CC licenses, for instance, or even under a derivative of the GPL.

Personally, I am a fan of CC:SA. I don't mind a small time person using that asset to make a game. That's why I donated it in the first place. That does not mean I want say, Zygna to go "Oh, art assets? FOR FREE!? OM NOM NOM NOM!"

It is this latter one that I feel warrants the "no commercial" verbiage, even today. The tradgedy of the commons happens when the commons is not protected, and happens without fail. Would I care if a small "for profit" project, like is often done with humble bundle used it? Not so much, as long as they gave attribution in 10pt font in the credits or smething. But Zygna? Fuck them.

The problem is that it is a binary on/off situation with commercial use. I would happily give an indie project commercial use rights, but it would be a cold day in hell when a major studio would get it.

If there were some finer granularity, I would use it, but in place of that, "no commercial" is at least a step in the right direction.

Removing it let's abusive companies go om nom nom with community assets.

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (3, Insightful)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143439)

CC should craft a NC flavor that says you don't want it used commercially in general but are willing to license for free under alternate terms. This would probably be enough to make Zynga skip it while still allowing indie-game-maker to pop you an email.

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143571)

Better yet, let's call this license CommercialMonopoly or NotFreeYoullBeBurned or ScumbagContentCreator or another funny freetard name that guilts the content creator into embracing non-commercial licensing for all. Or wait, not using Creative Commons at all. That's what I meant.

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (5, Insightful)

johnkzin (917611) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143587)

They already have that. It's called "NC". Surely you'll say "No, NC doesn't imply that"... but that's because people are myopic.

ANY property can be licensed under an alternate license. You just have to contact the property owner.

weird_w wants to license it in general under NC to prevent the general case of abuse, and to prevent abuse by entities he doesn't like... great.

If a small shop still wants to use the work, they already have a built-in remedy: contact weird_w and ask him for the same work under an alternate and/or negotiated license (closed/for-pay, closed/for-free, open, etc.). There's nothing about distributing _YOUR_ work under the GPL or CC or any other _general_ license that says you can't also simultaneously distribute _YOUR_ work under another license.

It's your work. Do you want you want. Distribute it under a GPL or OGL variant to people who's last name starts with A-M, and distribute it under CC-SA to people who's last names start with N-Y, and distribute it under CC-NC to people who's last names start with Z.

Or, distribute it under CC-NC to companies named BANDERSNATCH, and distribute it under CC-SA to everyone else.

It MIGHT make it harder to defend your property in court (I'm not a lawyer, consult one), but there have, historically, been lots of companies that distribute their work under multiple licenses. The first one that comes to mind is the old Ghostscript, which was under one license for the latest and greatest, and then a different license for older versions. Or FUDGE, which (at least for a while) was under an artist's license OR the OGL (your choice).

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (0)

devent (1627873) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144143)

Copyrighted work is not your property. It is not tangible, not an item, not physical. We have copyright to support art, it is not a human right or a fundamental right. Property cannot be licensed, it can be sold or be lend.

I really can't stress that enough. I have had it with musicians and artist and authors who somehow think their copyrighted work is their property or whatever. Also nobody is stealing from you. It's called copyright infringement, not rape not murder and not stealing.

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144213)

The point here is that I don't want money for the work. I just want to ensure that it doesn't get used in certain ways. Preventing me from having that ability will remove any incentive for me to release it in the first place. I don't make art for money. I make art for enjoyment. I get negative enjoyment from seeing something I drew or modeled sold to me, or used in advertisements I disaprove of.

It isn't that I get all uppity when somebody uses or modifies my work. If that were the case, I wouldn't even think about using any of the CC licenses. It is that my incentives for release to the commons comes with a tiny string attached. If you don't like that string, and would like to negotiate a better deal, drop an email. I don't want money, just assurances of proper use that are binding.

Insisting that I can't be afforded such minimal protection will be met with my refusal to release.

Good luck using that asset when the only copy is on paper, on my desk.

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144229)

Property is whatever society says it is. Your opinion of it does not change the fact that, as it stands today, people can and do own copyrighted work.

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144295)

The paintings and drawings that I do are very much tangible and physical, and I very much *do* exercise rights over them even after they have been sold to individuals or the occasional gallery. I don't really care what happens to the copyrights after I die, however.

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144375)

Yeah, I understand that you could always figure out alternate licensing terms with the author. I meant a flavor of NC that explicitly claims that the author is open to alternate licensing terms if this is NC is the only reason you couldn't use the asset.

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#41145061)

Just to make a software analogy: Remember QT? That used to be GPL, or separately licensed for closed-source uses.

You can do the same thing with all other works covered by copyrights, provided you have the copyright (as opposed to a license).

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (1)

Alef (605149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143595)

As the author, you always have that option. It is implicit. The CC license doesn't have to state anything about other licenses for the same work.

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (4, Informative)

paulproteus (112149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144391)

It exists. It's called CC+ .

More information: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus [creativecommons.org]

It's not actively promoted by CC, but if you read that page you'll see exactly how it works.

-- a former software engineer at Creative Commons.

Re:I'd just call bullshit. (1)

grumbel (592662) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144625)

It is this latter one that I feel warrants the "no commercial" verbiage, even today.

Zinga is big enough, they can take care of themselves and just recreate the artwork. The problems actually comes more from the smaller developers, who will grab "free" things from the web, use them in their iPhone apps and then sell them on the AppStore without ever giving to much considerations about the license. While I haven't yet used NC due to all problems it will cause with Linux distributions, that kind of stuff happened to me often enough to seriously consider it. It wouldn't completely stop it, but it would make it much easier to just point at the license and say "You are not allowed to do that", as CC-by-sa leaves to many confusing questions (i.e. You use SA sprites and backgrounds in a game, is the game Share-Alike?). I would also really like it when we somehow could mush CC-by-sa together with the GPL, as I really hate it to have my artwork used in non-Open Source games, but there really is right now no good way to prevent that right now with CC licenses.

Poorly Argued (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143341)

The NC clause is vague and survives entirely on two even more misinformed ideas. First is rightsholders’ fear of giving up their copy monopolies on commercial use, but what would be considered commercial use is necessarily ambiguous. Is distributing the file on a website which profits from ads a commercial use? Where is the line drawn between commercial and non-commercial use? In the end, it really isn’t.

Essentially the argument is "because there are some instances where commercial use is not well defined, all instances ought considered vague. Very poor logic there. There exist distinctly commercial uses of work (putting something I wrote under a CC license with a NC clause in a book and selling it) against which the NC clause protects. The NC clause is absolutely a useful option to have.

Re:Poorly Argued (3, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143705)

The NC version of the license is the only one I would ever willingly use, and that's coming from someone who is very familiar with copyright law. There's no misinformation involved. It simply doesn't bother me whether the definition of commercial use is precisely defined or vague, and honestly, I'd prefer that it be deliberately vague. If you are anywhere near that line, you should ask for permission. If you aren't anywhere near that line, you don't have to.

The only situation where it shouldn't be obvious would be posting something on a website on which you also sell ads. My rule on that is pretty simple: if you are an individual and those ads are basically intended to cover your bandwidth bill, you're fine. If you're a company or other organization, or if you are an individual who is making a living off of ad revenue, you're clearly on the other side of that line. If you're worried, ask.

Fork it ... (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143377)

into something called the Evolutionary Commons, where everything's guaranteed to be changeable and freed from any special Creator privileges.

Seriously I think CC is fine enough as it is for everybody that wants a taste of culture. Not everyone is a creator. As far as I can tell, there are no CC licenses that would prohibit somebody putting up stuff on Pirate Bay, which I think is the bare minimum for something to be called free. However, If there are licenses that can be used to sue jobless teenagers leeching and seeding in their basements, these licenses should be purged.

silly (3, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143425)

This is really, really silly.

The ND clause survives on the idea that rightsholders would not otherwise be able protect their reputation or preserve the integrity of their work, but all these fears about allowing derivatives are either permitted by fair use anyway or already protected by free licenses.

Counterexamples:

1. I write an opinion piece for my local paper on why G.W. Bush was the worst US president in history. Under any free license, someone else can write a revised version in which my opinions are all changed, then distribute it with attribution to me and the reviser. Fair use doesn't allow this. An ND license does what I want, which is to prevent this misrepresentation of my opinions.

2. Alice Randall wrote a book called The Wind Done Gone using the setting and characters of Gone With the Wind. Margaret Mitchell's estate sued Randall and won. If Gone With the Wind had been distributed under an ND license, this would have been prevented. Under a free license, it would have been allowed. Fair use doesn't allow this use.

3. I make coffee mugs with Harry Potter characters on them and sell them on the internet without paying a royalty to J.K. Rowling. If Rowling had chosen any free license, this would have been allowed. With an NC license, it's prohibited, which is what she wants. It doesn't fall under fair use.

Most importantly, though, is that both clauses do not actually contribute to a shared commons.

Yes, this is blindingly obvious. In all three examples above, the original author had no intention of contributing to a shared commons.

Perhaps the silliest thing of all about this is the belief that people can somehow be prevented from using NC or ND licenses. Nobody can prevent this. The CC organization could "deprecate" them, and this would have absolutely no effect.

Re:silly (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143905)

> Perhaps the silliest thing of all about this is the belief that people can somehow be prevented from using NC or ND licenses. Nobody can prevent this. The CC organization could "deprecate" them, and this would have absolutely no effect.

The point is that, some people think any Creative Commons license is adding their work to the commons. Whereas NC and ND are not. They are called Creative *Commons*, so either they could change their name or stop promoting licenses that don't add to the commons.

Re:silly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144317)

That's just silly. The NC clause does not prevent work from entering the commons, it just means that you can't charge for it. And the ND clause allows you to use the work, you just can't create a derivative version without permission, there are still plenty of ways for the work to be used as a part of the commons. You're just somewhat restricted on how you use it.

Both are better than nothing which is what you'd get from those creators if you have to go all or nothing on it.

Why dropping the NC/ND clauses would be better??? (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143443)

I fail to see how dropping NC/ND types from CC v4.0 would be a benefit.

If the authors would really want a license that amounts to one/both of the NC/ND and there's none to reference on the CC site, they'll specify them expressly; so "hiding" them from the CCv4.0 set of licenses won't bring more "liberty" for the community.

Also, if an author releases the creation with NC/ND clauses, it doesn't make their creation "absolutely non-Commons" - granted, not the same degree of freedom, but neither completely "private".
If, for some purposes, somebody needs exceptions (eg distributing Wikipedia on offline media, in communities without internet access), what's wrong with contacting the author to ask for another license, to be granted (or not) on a case by case basis?

In my mind, the request to drop NC/ND from CC is akin to asking the Open Source community to abolish GPL and use only BSD derived licences.

Re:Why dropping the NC/ND clauses would be better? (1)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143757)

I fail to see how dropping NC/ND types from CC v4.0 would be a benefit.
If the authors would really want a license that amounts to one/both of the NC/ND and there's none to reference on the CC site, they'll specify them expressly; so "hiding" them from the CCv4.0 set of licenses won't bring more "liberty" for the community.

Right. Or they'll write their own licenses, which has a couple of big disadvantages: (1) Non-lawyers will write their own licenses and mess up, or people will put things in their license that will have unintended consequences. (2) There will be lots of different and incompatible licenses, which makes sharing more difficult. Neither of these is purely hypothetical. There really was an overproliferation of licenses ca. 2000. E.g., here [opencontent.org] is a license created in 1999; its author now recommends using CC instead. The existence of both GFDL and CC-BY-SA has created huge hassles for a lot of people. There are definitely examples of misconceived clauses in software licenses, e.g., the infamous BSD advertising clause [wikipedia.org]. A similar example in non-software licenses would be the optional invariant sections [wikipedia.org] clause in the GFDL, which caused major hassles in debian documentation.

Re:Why dropping the NC/ND clauses would be better? (5, Insightful)

Dzimas (547818) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143903)

I'm one of the guys behind an open source music hardware project (meeblip.com) and strongly against NC/ND restrictions. They exist out of fear and stand counter to the central tenant of open source (*anyone* should be able to study, modify, distribute, make and sell the design or a derivative work based on that design).

There is natural conflict in the development process, because after spending hundreds or thousands of hours creating something cool, it's hard to let go. This conflict is especially difficult if you decide that releasing your project as open source is the best way to distribute it and get others to use and extend it. The first knee-jerk reaction is to attempt to retain as much control as you can -- "Yeah, it's open source, but I don't want you using it commercially or as the basis of something else." -- If you follow through with that restriction, you're essentially releasing source code or design files for a closed project. It's open in name only.

Once you recognize that your biggest fear is actually the idea that someone will take your idea and do a better (or more successful) job at it than you have, you can begin to step forward. The first step is to understand that if you have a really good idea, someone will clone it. In fact, it's likely that 15 people will clone it. And that's good, because they might do a better job and there's nothing from stopping you from incorporating their good ideas into your project (a derivative work of a derivative work!). Whether or not you explicitly grant permission for someone to use your ideas, rest assured that they will. To that end, it makes the most sense to release with a CC Share Alike requirement that ensures that your ideas and their derivatives stay public and accessible to all.

Re:Why dropping the NC/ND clauses would be better? (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144339)

I'm someone who writes and publishes music under CC-NC-SA. Since I'm doing artistic stuff rather than engineering stuff with it, it's possible my perspective is a bit different, but I suspect the argument will apply just as well.

I'm not afraid someone will do it better. I'm afraid that some organization will take what I've given away, copy it, make a token modification, and copyright it, thus turning the work that I made as a gift into something that has a price on it, all without paying me a dime. They might even be able to turn around and issue DMCA takedowns and sue people for performing my work, claiming that they're really performing their version rather than my version. They've now taken free artistic work and made it no longer free. In other words, they aren't really adding any value at all, just taking value from me and from the public and declaring it theirs.

An illustrative case: Pete Seeger took biblical verses and wrote the song Turn, Turn, Turn [wikipedia.org], releasing it into the public domain. Several other folk musicians performed it, and it gained in popularity, and Pete finally recorded it in 1962. In 1965, the Byrds recorded it, and now most people who've heard of the song think that they wrote it originally, and some others think Bob Dylan wrote it. Had Pete Seeger not been a relatively well-known figure, it's quite possible his contribution would have been forgotten entirely.

If somebody wants to take my stuff and use it in a commercial project, releasing it under CC-NC-SA doesn't say they can't do it, it just says that they need to get in touch with me and work out some sort of arrangement. In practical terms, it means that if someone else wants to sing my song among friends or something, they can just do it, but if somebody wants to put it on an album or book or something like that, we need to talk about it.

Re:Why dropping the NC/ND clauses would be better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144365)

I've been writing music for the last 12 years. I will never release my music without an NC ND clause. The reason is that I intend for Joe Public to freely download and share as much as they like. But:

a: If someone wants to earn money off my hard work, I want remuneration commensurate for my efforts
b: If someone wants to remix my music, I want to know what they're doing with it first. I don't wish my music to become the backing track to another 'famine song'

Re:Why dropping the NC/ND clauses would be better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144605)

>central tenant of open source

Tenant, huh? Is he a fat guy with a beard [wikipedia.org]?

Re:Why dropping the NC/ND clauses would be better? (3, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144641)

I'm one of the guys behind an open source music hardware project (meeblip.com) and strongly against NC/ND restrictions. They exist out of fear and stand counter to the central tenant of open source (*anyone* should be able to study, modify, distribute, make and sell the design or a derivative work based on that design).

Sorry,

The key assumption in your argumentation: "open source software/hardware" and "open artistic creation" are identical. I assert that there's a fundamental difference between the two:

1. software/hardware is an engineering problem, and the results can be improved, polished, maintained over time in sync with technological advances.

2. By contrast, an artistic creation is meant to transmit/produce emotions/feelings/sensations etc... For some creations, the author may feel that any change in the expression would alter too much the intentions s/he had when creating it
Say whatever one may, no-one - maybe not even the author - can "improve" on a specific artistic creation

Yes, you can try to use an existing creation to build something equally appealing to the people, but in doing so you are going to dilute the original authors intentions (if not outright destroying [nydailynews.com] them entirely).

Another example [nme.com]

Pink Floyd's attorney Robert Howe describes the band's albums as "seamless pieces." No-one who's heard 'The Dark Side Of The Moon' would quibble with that.

You know, I do agree with that and not only in respect with The Dark side of the moon.

My opinion is: the "open source" or "closed license" character for an artistic creation is irrelevant - the creator's wish is to be respected . Anything else would show a lack of respect for the original creative act, which I would say is more dangerous for society than the potential loss of another derivative creation.

Re:Why dropping the NC/ND clauses would be better? (1)

devent (1627873) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144083)

(eg distributing Wikipedia on offline media, in communities without internet access), what's wrong with contacting the author to ask for another license, to be granted (or not) on a case by case basis?

Can you think of any practical way to ask the thousand of contributors of Wikipedia for an exception?

In my mind, the request to drop NC/ND from CC is akin to asking the Open Source community to abolish GPL and use only BSD derived licences.

No it is not. It is akin to abolish any field-of-use terms [wikipedia.org] in the GPL or the BSD (which they not have). NC and ND basically say: That work is free but only if you are not using it for Xxxx and Zzzz. Which means it is not free at all.

Re:Why dropping the NC/ND clauses would be better? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#41145175)

(eg distributing Wikipedia on offline media, in communities without internet access), what's wrong with contacting the author to ask for another license, to be granted (or not) on a case by case basis?

Can you think of any practical way to ask the thousand of contributors of Wikipedia for an exception?

Well... though luck... what would you find preferable:
1. not have a Wikipedia at all (not even online) because a less restrictive license would not have attracted the same participation
2. have an online version and no offline version.

Before jumping up with the accusation of "false dichotomy", note that I am not excluding
a. an attempt to still try to "negotiate" a more liberal distribution license with Wikipedia as an organisation... It may or may not be successful... but, as the "SOPA blackout protest" demonstrate, there are chances for the Wikipedia to act as an organisation rather than a heterogeneous group of authors (that is to say: it is not me to push the problem in a "false dichotomy")
b. would point a. fail, nobody stops anyone in starting Wikipedia (under another name) with a more liberal license.... you know? Just to check if the level of participation...

In my mind, the request to drop NC/ND from CC is akin to asking the Open Source community to abolish GPL and use only BSD derived licences.

No it is not. It is akin to abolish any field-of-use terms [wikipedia.org] in the GPL or the BSD (which they not have). NC and ND basically say: That work is free but only if you are not using it for Xxxx and Zzzz. Which means it is not free at all.

The cited resource define the term in the "patent license" genus. Are you sure the same apply for the copyright protection?

Summary and opinion (3, Insightful)

MojoRilla (591502) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143447)

A summary of this article is:

I want CC No Commercial (NC) and CC No Derivatives (ND) clauses removed because they don't really support free. Works don't enrich the commons unless you can do whatever you want with them. Also, the NC clause should be eliminated because it is really hard to define commercial. Does commercial mean you can't share a file on a website that has ads?

My opinion is that a little free is better than not free. I should be able to donate my work to the commons without expecting to see it on a billboard. Which has actually happened. In terms of the commercial example, I think we can all judge when things move over the line from donation based to blatantly commercial. The good news is that it is up to me as a rights holder to enforce the license. I can allow uses of my file in ad supported web sites, but object to my song being used in a local TV ad. Yes, there are ambiguities in everything. That's life.

If you object to these licenses, don't use 'em. Or anything with them.

Disclaimer: I've licensed songs I've written as CC NC.

Remove NC licensing, are you stupid or what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143477)

You seriously want to remove all commercial protection that a CC user obviously wants (given how much stuff is released using one of these licenses), just because a few scenarios are in a gray area? You may think you should be able to profit off someone else's original content without permission, but I don't think that.

If I can't protect my work from commercial duplication (IE a newspaper, publisher or magazine selling my article/book/photo/whatever with impunity), then I'm not going to use Creative Commons anymore, simple as that.

Re:Remove NC licensing, are you stupid or what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143931)

The fact is that the people who didn't mind people using the works commercially were already free to allow it. This is just going to bite the folks like you that either don't want the works used for profit at all or whom want to be able to negotiate a price for the materials.

TURKEY HEADED penis - gobble gobble! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143541)

Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes [imdb.com]

"John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."

##

"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
- Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio [imdb.com]

##

"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)

##

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director

##

"The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing - for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy - so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president - every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial." The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so."
- Victor Marchetti, Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History

##

George Carlin:

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.

This country is finished."

##

We now return you Americans to your media: Corporate, Government sponsored and controlled (rigged) elections..

Most of you are all so asleep it's time you woke up!

Let me parse this a bit (2)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143585)

Instead of wasting effort maintaining and explaining a wider set of conflicting licenses, Creative Commons as an organization should focus on providing better and more consistent support for the licenses that really make sense.

"Instead of wasting effort maintaining and explaining" -- Presuming the conclusion. You are supposed to convince us why it's wasted effort, not just label it such.

"a wider set of conflicting licenses" -- the licenses don't conflict just to conflict but rather because they embody different and incompatible ways of licensing the same work.

"Creative Common as an organization" -- as opposed to Creative Commons as a giant lizard-robot, very important.

"should focus on providing better and more consistent support" -- they don't provide good and consistent support? Since when?!

" for the licenses that really make sense" -- where 'really' here is a synonym for 'to me' because we know that no content creator could possibly want to use a license whose terms conflict with the ones that I would chose.

Missing the point (1)

DL117 (2138600) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143601)

Creative Commons isn't intended to be a free license-we have the GPL, BSD license etc for that. It's intended to be a license that supports distribution of creative works while preserving certain rights. It's also intended to be user-friendly for both parties. It's not supposed to be one of the more politically-oriented licenses.

Also: You can't 'retire' a license. It's a legal agreement, a piece of text. A CC license can't be retired anymore than a book can be retired.

Re:Missing the point (1)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143835)

Creative Commons isn't intended to be a free license-we have the GPL, BSD license etc for that.

No, some CC licenses are free and some are not. CC-BY-SA is free. (It's what Wikipedia uses.) Anything with ND or NC is not free.

The difference between CC-BY-SA and GPL is that GPL is designed as a software license, CC-BY-SA for other creative works such as books. There's an analogous relationship between CC-BY and BSD.

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144125)

uhm.. not free according to who?

modt people will consider something they can download and use to be free.

Re:Missing the point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144885)

I name the CC licenses like this in my head:
CC-BY: BSD
CC-BY-SA: GPL
CC-BY-NC-ND: We wont sue you for putting it up on a torrent site
CC-BY-NC(-SA): BSD (GPL) except you must ask permission to sell/make money off of the derivatives.

Dumb (1)

Altanar (56809) | about a year and a half ago | (#41143665)

Drop NC/ND and the authors who want to use them will find an alternative. Probably a more closed one. This helps no one.

Translate and Censorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41143745)

I remember back in the 2400 baud modem days, when you had to carefully decide what to share. People who are just getting onto the internet don't understand how easy it is to share, and why it's not okay to share everything they have.

The entire "non-commercial use only" problem is a serious problem, and widely misunderstood. By default, CC's NC licence should operate as "commercial ~mass production prohibited~", eg uploading a video to youtube or a file to dropbox, even though the sites make money in some way, should not prohibit placing the content somewhere that is easily accessible. On the other hand, you have the China problem where video (legal or not) is taken from somewhere, dumped onto DVD in China, and then sold on eBay. This is the problem that "non-commercial" was meant to solve. It wasn't meant to, and shouldn't mean "don't rehost my content on a commercial website."

Another tangent to the CC licence that is also problem, is the translation and censorship of content. If I have, for example, a webcomic on my website and a foreigner who wishes to rehost translated copies of the content, I'd be fine with that. I however would not want the content to be censored, or the english copies to be rehosted, because I make money only when it's on MY site. However you see many "scanlation" and "fansub" websites that clearly do not have the rights to do what they are doing at all, but there is too much of a language barrier to get permission from everyone involved (foreign artists, agents, publishers, etc) so many of these sites operate in a grey area only dealing with the unlicenced content. The problem comes back to bite the copyright holders later however as those unlicensed copies hurt future sales should they ever be licensed. The internet doesn't forget.

So this comes back to the CC NC clause. If the original artist puts their content under CC NC, they don't care if someone translates, censors, and puts it on another website. CC ND prohibits translation and censorship, so it's only useful purpose is to ensure that content isn't being censored, but at the same time it prevents translation.

I'd suggest maybe replacing ND with "No Censorship", where the content can be edited to add value or context but not to excise undesirable parts. NC needs to be more like a "No Access Rights Locking" where the content can be shared, even commercial copies made, but they can't be locked down to prevent further copying.

Re:Translate and Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144175)

To a large extent, I can understand your aversion to censorship, but if it's the difference between foreigners being able to enjoy your work with a few words blocked out, or not being able to enjoy your work at all...

Re:Translate and Censorship (1)

cpghost (719344) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144449)

I'd suggest maybe replacing ND with "No Censorship", where the content can be edited to add value or context but not to excise undesirable parts.

I disagree. ND is not only about preventing deletion (a.k.a. censorship), it is also needed to prevent vandalism or malicious or outright bad changes in derivations. Suppose for the sake of an example that I wrote a collection of poems and I had some talent in that department (I didn't and I haven't: it's purely theoretical). I would be hugely pissed if some amateur took those poems and transmogrified them into some horrible high school poetry... and released the changed text under my name. Imagine what this would do to my reputation. The same holds true for translations: what if I wanted to double-check those translations just to be sure they got the meaning right as a form of quality control? That's what ND is for: you may still create derivatives, but I'd like to have a say in the matter. If I didn't care, I would rather release that into the Public Domain.

Share or not to share (1)

devent (1627873) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144003)

Quite a few comments from artists(?) that want to share their work but at the same time do not want to share their works. So what do you want, to share or not to share?

I'm a software developer and any ND or NC license is useless for me.
What is a derivation? If I take your art (like an icon) and re-size it or use a different color, ups can't do, because it is a derivation and ND don't allow it.
What is commercial? I develop a free open source tool and release it on my site, but the site have ads from Google, or it have other commercial applications there, too. Can't do that with a NC license.

I think I'm not the only one who just skips any ND or NC licenses. Is it what you want? Why to share your work in the first place?

If some big studio takes your work and makes a great game out of it, isn't it what you want as an artist? Better to have your name in the credits of Big Game Foo then to live in obscurity. And just maybe the Big Publisher will hire you for the next game.

I'm agree with the article author opinion. The ND and NC licenses are contrary to the goal of Creative Commons.

What is Creative Commons?
Creative Commons helps you share your knowledge and creativity with the world.

Creative Commons develops, supports, and stewards legal and technical
infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and
innovation.

It's like the GPL or the BSD would be useless with a fields-of-use clause. And the ND or NC is like a fields-of-use clause.

Re:Share or not to share (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144949)

If some big studio takes your work and makes a great game out of it, isn't it what you want as an artist?

In that scenario, an artist wants to get paid, ideally an appropriate percentage of the gross profits.

Re:Share or not to share (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year and a half ago | (#41145193)

I think I'm not the only one who just skips any ND or NC licenses. Is it what you want? Why to share your work in the first place?

Maybe because I want to showcase my work, but I don't want to let you just go and use that code as the heart of your own work. If you want to do that, if you want to take my work as the basis for building something of your own and profiting from it? Come talk to me and we'll negotiate how many dollars you'll pay me for the rights to do what you need to do. You're even getting an advantage, you've already seen the source code and you know you can extend it the way you need to. You don't want to pay? Well and good, go write your own version from scratch.

Oh, you wanted to take my stuff and use it to save yourself a lot of work and money but you don't want to pay me for it? Well, you're entitled to want that, but that doesn't obligate me to give it to you. There's I suspect a large number of programmers who'd like to be able to show off their code, show potential customers in the clearest way possible why their products are better, without in the process handing out a license to do anything with the code. ND and NC provide a standardized way of doing that. It may annoy certain commercial types that there's all this tantalizing stuff that's just what they need but that they can't just take, but lesson #1: life's tough, deal.

Re:Share or not to share (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41145237)

The point of CC-ND and CC-NC is that it allows you to share images or whatever under somewhat restricted rules. As the owner of the work you always have the right to grant exemptions in the form of alternatively licensed copies which could be sold or modified. You can even authorize individual modified copies to be licensed in whatever way depending upon the specifics.

The same goes for the GPL versus BSD debate. They're both good licenses and they should both be available for those that wish one over the other. But just because the BSD license is more free doesn't make the people who use the slightly less free GPL license any less generous with their time. It just means that they're more concerned about people making use and not giving back.

Same goes for this debate. Personally, I like to use both as I want to know if somebody is modifying my work, even though I have no particular interest in profiting from it. I like to know what people are doing with it. There may be a case where it's being used for a purpose that I can't stand, but in general I like to have some control over it, even if practically non-existent.

People who use these licenses are still taking a risk and they're still very generous people, we can't all go all in on something like this. And some folks just want to dip a toe in to test the waters of giving away their work.

Re:Share or not to share (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41145273)

You can't really compare software development to other creative domains as the needs of artists, writers and musicians are totally different.

A writer might be concerned that (after spending many months or even years on a book) if he or she licences that book under a Non-NC licence, that a publisher may then simply take that book, print it, and sell the resulting physical copies at a profit, without a cent returning to the author for all their hard work.

Try doing that with open source software, people would simply laugh at you, sure you could argue that someone could use cd's or other physical media to sell open source software, but that's not doing anything that can't be done with an internet connection and a usb drive, where as there is still a very real market for printed books.

Similarly if someone creates a great piece of art that isn't protected by NC, you could well imagine that piece of art appearing in an advertisement that the creator does not agree with and if the licence the art is under requires attribution then the artist may well find their name in lights.

Personally I hate the copyright and patent systems as they are to heavily weighted towards the rights holder, I also hate all forms of exploitation that's why I dislike BSD style licences as they don't require anyone to give back to the community.

Personally I'd like to see a, - give back what you gain - , licence. So if you take some ones work and make money from it you automatically give back to either the community or the creator as specified by the creator, what is given back does not necessarily have to be money either. For example a publisher that prints a book may release some of their works under the same licence as the book, thereby contributing back to the community which is a good thing for everyone.

CC-BY-ND has its uses (3, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | about a year and a half ago | (#41144193)

Say, I publish a book under my own name. I don't care if people reproduce it on their websites, and I don't care if commercial enterprises included it into their own collections. Hey, it's not the money I'm after, so they can sell it too, if they want. What I do care about however, is that nobody comes and starts modifying (adding to, modifying or deleting from) that text... because my name and reputation are associated with it. That's what ND is for. Even if CC removed ND from its list of options, nothing prevents me from releasing said book under an ND-like condition nonetheless.

Creative Commons needs Copyfarleft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144463)

"The peer production license is an example of the Copyfarleft type of license, in which only other commoners, cooperatives and nonprofits can share and re-use the material, but not commercial entities intent on making profit through the commons without explicit reciprocity"

http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License

Far, far better than just NC-ND

Talk about not getting it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41144645)

I wish I could remember the exact incident, but I remember the gist of it very well: some corpo-suit type was talking about a very successful Open Source software project that the company he represented had either originated or incubated or otherwise given a big boost to. And this corpo-suit was bemoaning the fact that they hadn't locked "their property" up and made people pay through the nose to work with it, because then think of how much they could have reaped from people's eagerness to work with "their" code. Thus entirely missing the fact obvious to everyone else, that if it had been locked up and completely pay-to-play like that, they wouldn't have had anywhere near the interest that they did.

This "member of Students for Free Culture"* sounds like he's making the exact same mistake, only from the other side. Creative Commons licenses were meant to serve creators who didn't necessarily want to give away all rights to their works, but wanted to give some non-traditional rights to their audiences in a legally safe way. This student is saying "No, we shouldn't be letting anyone find a comfortable middle ground; Creative Commons must serve only those who come completely over to our side!" Missing the point completely that those who do want to go all the way to the Totally Free side already can do that, and if Creative Commons limited themselves to only those people, they would have cut off a lot of their own support.

* I really wonder how many degrees of separation there are between this student and the submitter...

Critical Thinking (2)

codegen (103601) | about a year and a half ago | (#41145149)

I found the article incredibly repetative and wishy washy and I think the author needs to go back to critical thinking class. It seems boil down to anybody who wants NC,ND is mistaken and doesn't understand creative commons. Other than pointing out the ambiguities on NC, it really doesn't justify the point of view other than "I'm right, you are wrong" with vague references to "outdated business models". More importantly, the author of the articl never attempts to address the uses cases intended by these clauses. One use case is that an owner of copyright wants to make it available to others, but does not want it modified (ND). If I put a photo up of my nephew and I want my family and friends (and family friends) to be able to share it amonst themselves, including with friends I don't know, CC makes a lot of sense. ND means that you don't get to use my nephews photo in your latest LOLimage and NC means some company doesn't get to use it in the ad campaign. And if you follow some of the groups on flickr, you find that photos are being routinely appriated for advertising use.

In the end, if the ND and NC clauses are struck from CCv4.0, people like me will simply stay with CCv3.0, or fork a new CC2v4.0

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...