Comments on: Moving Away From Creative Commons

By: lance

lance — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:20:04 +0000

@Steven, I don't really consider any permalink with rel=license as machine readable. It's just tagged unless a computer can understand it. CC-RDF would be machine readable.

As for Aditya not missing the machine readable aspect of CC, well, I have my answer.

By: Aditya

Aditya — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:11:20 +0000

lance » Yes, nobody reads the “license” part of the license, because it’s just plain big and boring. The part which they do read, just tells them what they can’t do. That doesn’t work for me.

I want to tell people what they can do, blocking everything else off (including anything not mentioned). “Machine readable” doesn’t matter, because the machine doesn’t need to understand your license. It just needs to be able to locate your license, which as Stephen said, needs a rel='license' attribute to the link.

By: Stephen Paul Weber

Stephen Paul Weber — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:13:54 +0000

@lance - no one reads the Creative Commons legal code - they just look at the human-readable deed. I read the legal code once to modify - as an experiment. Wasn’t too bad, but it’s not something most people ever need to do.

On the topic of machine readable, as long as your license has a permalink and you rel=license it, you are machine readable. If you really want all the different can/can’t stuff you can still use the CC-RDF experiments to specify your own combination.

By: lance

lance — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:54:07 +0000

Aditya, it might take someone 15 minutes to read the license, but what about losing the benefit of machine readable licenses when you switch to your own, simpler to human-read license?

By: Stephen Paul Weber

Stephen Paul Weber — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:41:14 +0000

Well, I can’t really say much more until you release your new license. Sounds to me like a lot of work when all you want to do is enable sharing.

Good presentation on this stuff (not this specifically, more free culture in general) if you (or others reading this) feel interested: http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html

By: Aditya

Aditya — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:34:07 +0000

I don’t want to keep a CC license because I think “they’re” evil. I sat through 15 minutes once trying to think like someone who would want to use something bound by my previous ND license, and realised that if it takes someone 15 minutes to just read the license, they can forget about ever making anything off of it.

I have always spoken for protection of rights and property, even when Facebook joined the DP workgroup. I strongly believe every person has every right to allow/disallow use of what they write and create. Just because I don’t want rampant use of my property, does not make me wrong. On the other hand it shows that I take my property seriously.

Your first point basically answers all your questions and doubts. “Unless you say otherwise”. I “am” saying otherwise. I just need a little time to work it out properly.

“… but for some reason want to invent …”

I give the reason at the end of the third paragraph.

By: Stephen Paul Weber

Stephen Paul Weber — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:19:02 +0000

2) “By your logic, every citation of anything we’ve read in a book or magazine is illegal” - mostly, unless deemed as fair use by the courts - this is not my logic, it’s the letter of the law (read the Berne Convention sometime… fuuuun ;) or just read whatiscopyright.org)

3) “until my terms are defined” - by your license ;)

I know you didn’t mean to say that there will be no sharing ever ;) I didn’t mean to imply that you’re evil. I’m just saying that it sounds like you agree with the spirit of the CC licenses (especially the more liberal ones) - but for some reason want to invent your own custom license and are moving through all rights reserved (which, as I’ve said, is the default legally until you put out your new license) until you get it done. Fair enough.

By: Aditya

Aditya — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:08:41 +0000

Nowhere have I enforced an “All rights reserved” license. I’ve simply said “copyright” which until my terms are defined, should mean you can’t take anything without my permission. It’s not a permanent thing. By your logic, every citation of anything we’ve read in a book or magazine is illegal. The idea is to “share and receive”, but I want to guide the terms on how I want you to share and receive. No license out there lets me do that, so I use the all binding copyright, and slowly give people breathing space based on how I see it fit.

I’ve taken a “everything that is not mentioned is not allowed” approach, because I believe there are many things I’ve written and come up with which need to be protected. Your move to any license is how you see your content. I prefer to keep my property close to me, and get the deserved credit.

“You do realize that’s what a license is, right?”

Again, I didn’t say anywhere that there will be no license and it’s an all encompassing rule that you’re taking nothing from my site ever. I just ask for a little patience. And if there is something that you want to use so badly, you can always ask.

By: Stephen Paul Weber

Stephen Paul Weber — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:52:11 +0000

“It’s that simple, and there are no two ways about it. If you want to create derivatives, go ahead. Citations, attributed use etc. are all welcome.”

Wrong. Allrightsreserved doesn’t allow these uses at all. See whatiscopyright.org The whole point of CC is to be less restrictive, not more. CC says the few things you still can’t do, without a license you’re saying visitors can’t do anything. If “The entire idea of a weblog is to share and receive” then you should use a license that allows that - hence my move to CC-BY.

“I will be putting up the terms of my copyright soon enough.”

Oh, you mean your new license? You do realize that’s what a license is, right? Therms of copyright?