LWN.net Logo

Creative Commons retires two licenses

From:  Lawrence Lessig <lessig-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org>
To:  cc-licenses-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy-AT-public.gmane.org
Subject:  Retiring standalone DevNations and one Sampling license
Date:  Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:02:43 -0700
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

Today we are retiring two of the Creative Commons licenses -- the  
stand alone Developing Nations license, as well as one of the three  
Sampling licenses we offer. The reasons for these retirements are  
both practical and principled.

The practical reason is simple lack of interest: From the start,  
Creative Commons has promised to keep our family of licenses as  
simple as possible. Actual demand has been one of the key indicators  
of how simple things can be. We estimate just 0.01% of our existing  
licenses are Developing Nations licenses, and 0.01% are the version  
of the Sampling license that we are retiring. Those numbers say that  
these licenses are not in demand.

The principled reasons are different with each license. The  
Developing Nations license is in conflict with the growing "Open  
Access Publishing" movement. While the license frees creative work in  
the developing nations, it does not free work in any way elsewhere.  
This means these licenses do not meet the minimum standards of the  
Open Access Movement. Because this movement is so important to the  
spread of science and knowledge, we no longer believe it correct to  
promote a stand alone version of this license. Later this month, we  
will begin a discussion about adding the terms of the Developing  
Nations license to 5 of the other CC licenses, and giving users the  
option to include those terms in their license. (So, for example, you  
could select a BY-NC license for the developed world, but offer a BY  
license for creators within Developing Nations.) Because such an  
option would be attached to a standard CC license, it would not  
conflict with the principle we are announcing here. Based upon the  
feedback we get to that idea, we will decide whether to implement it.

The Sampling License presents a similar concern. Until today, we have  
offered three versions of the Sampling license. Two of those versions  
permit noncommercial sharing of the licensed work (SamplingPlus, and  
Noncommercial SamplingPlus). One (the Sampling License) only permits  
the remix of the licensed work, not the freedom to share it. There is  
a strong movement to convince Creative Commons that our core licenses  
at least permit the freedom to share a work noncommercially.

Creative Commons supports that movement. We will not adopt as a  
Creative Commons license any license that does not assure at least  
this minimal freedom -- at least not without substantial public  
discussion. We are grateful for the feedback, and for the  
understanding of those who helped us craft the sampling licenses,  
both of which got us here.

This change does not affect any existing licensed work. The links to  
these licenses, and every Creative Commons license, will always  
remain valid. The only change we're making today is that we will no  
longer offer these licenses on our licensing page.

To read more about these retirements, please visit our retired  
licenses page at
http://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses


Lawrence Lessig
CEO
Creative Commons
171 Second Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
http://creativecommons.org


(Log in to post comments)

Share-Alike without Attribution

Posted Jun 5, 2007 18:05 UTC (Tue) by xuxa (guest, #29601) [Link]

Thank you for your continued work on these licenses, Larry.

I am very pleased to hear about the retiring of these two licenses. I agree that they fall short of promoting Free Culture.

The simple Share-Alike license (without an attribution clause) was also retired due to lack of adoption. I am a composer and recording artist and was very excited to have a GPL-style license under which I could release my music. While I appreciate Creative Commons' hard work to keep licenses simple, I was very disappointed that the development of this license ceased. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me like attribution can quickly become burdensome with music. It seems like the number of attributions can grow almost exponentially, so that when my song samples from 5 other songs, each of which sampled from 5 others, I now have 25 attributions to make. The next person that wants to sample from my piece now has a pretty long list to contend with. It feels to me like an attribution clause is a bit short-sided, and is in contention with the freedoms stated in the GPL. It might not have been a popular license, but to me, it was the best.

Is there any chance that a GPL-style Creative Commons license will come back? Or perhaps I'm just mistaken about the implications of the Attribution clause. Is there a place where I read more about Creative Commons' and others' take on this subject? I have searched through the forums and have found only a few references. I'm always debating about whether to continue using the Share-Alike 1.0 license, or assume I'm mistaken about all this and switch to something like the "Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License". Any further information would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks again, Larry!

Share-Alike without Attribution

Posted Jun 5, 2007 18:13 UTC (Tue) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

xuxa,

it is interesting that you should have this concern with attribution.

I have asked a question about a similar concern with the URI requirements on the BY-SA licenses and broadcast radio on the CC mailing lists.

Basically, the answer I got was that the URI would need to be read/spelled out for each BY-SA song.

To my recollection, no one disputed this claim. I don't see how BY-SA or BY music will ever get any airplay on broadcast radio if that is true.

all the best,

drew

Share-Alike without Attribution

Posted Jun 5, 2007 19:42 UTC (Tue) by xuxa (guest, #29601) [Link]

Very interesting. That would certainly suggest the importance of a simple Share-Alike option. Thanks for the input, Drew!

Share-Alike without Attribution

Posted Jun 6, 2007 16:48 UTC (Wed) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

Openstreetmaps is having problems in this area also. It's CC-BY-SA and now has thousands of contributors. Does this mean that every map printed from that data has to list the name of every person who has ever editted that part of the map?

The question is really, what kind of attribution is sufficient? An URI, the list, ...? The options in this area need to be spelled out more clearly.

Share-Alike without Attribution

Posted Jun 7, 2007 12:00 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

I'm fairly certain that "Map data by OpenStreetmap" would be fine. But I agree, uncertanity is bad, so it would be very beneficial to spell it out.

Share-Alike without Attribution

Posted Jun 9, 2007 1:34 UTC (Sat) by mlinksva (guest, #38268) [Link]

Reading the license URI is giving license notice and is not part of attribution, which is about giving credit to the creator/owner. Even plain SA 1.0 required notice. (But note that no CC music podcasts or broadcasts that I know of bother reading license URIs on air.)

You can use BY-* and waive attribution or specify attribution go to a publisher (as makes sense for mass collaborations like wikis).

It made no sense to split the pool of freely remixable content between SA and BY-SA. That retirement made a ton of sense, as do the two recent retirements.

Share-Alike without Attribution

Posted Jun 6, 2007 3:46 UTC (Wed) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]

Note BTW that the GPL actually does have attribution requirements. (So does BSD, for that matter.)

I saw another interesting case where someone wanted a SA-noAttr license -- for the licensing of the text of a license :-). They wanted other people to be able to use their language as a basis for other licenses, but attribution notices are a confusing and unimportant thing to provide in a legal document.

Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds