Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Villa: Thoughts on the CC Summit
Luis Villa has posted a set
of notes from the Creative Commons Global Summit. "Conversation
around the revised CC 4.0 license drafts was mostly quite positive. The
primary expressed concerns were about fragmentation and
cross-jurisdictional compatibility. I understand these concerns better now,
having engaged in several good discussions about them with folks at the
conference. That said, I came away only confirmed on my core position on
CC’s license drafting: when in doubt, CC should always err on the side of
creating a global license and enabling low-complexity sharing."
(Log in to post comments)
Villa: Thoughts on the CC Summit Posted Aug 31, 2013 16:21 UTC (Sat) by gioele (subscriber, #61675) [Link]
How come there are no comments on the non-free CC licenses with the NonCommercial and NoDerivative clauses?
Both NC and ND are, in my personal work experience, seriously hindering data sharing and reusing. I hoped that the drafters of CC 4.0 have a plan to address these problems.
Non-free licenses Posted Aug 31, 2013 16:35 UTC (Sat) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Well, he did say this:
Interesting to see that the distribution of licenses is mostly getting more free over time. After seeing the focuses of the various Creative Commons affiliates, I think this is probably not coincidence – they all seem quite dedicated to educating governments, OERs, and others about transaction costs associated with less free licenses, and many report good results. The chart linked in that paragraph is also worth a look.
Non-free licenses Posted Sep 2, 2013 10:03 UTC (Mon) by gioele (subscriber, #61675) [Link]
> they all seem quite dedicated to educating governments, OERs, and others about transaction costs associated with less free licenses, and many report good results.
This education effort, that I have done in the past and will have to do again the future, would be much easier if the pages for the ND and NC licences would feature a big, red, bold label that says "This licence is not free can severely hinder the usefulness of your work."
To be fair, the licence chooser tool tells you that adding ND or NC will make the license a non-"Free culture" license. However, the simple fact that the licenses are endorsed by Creative Commons makes it hard to argue with non experts that they are "less free" and "less 'common'" than the others.
> The chart linked in that paragraph is also worth a look.
I wonder if the share of free licenses has flattened out during 2010-2013 (the graph shows data only up to 2010).
Non-free licenses Posted Sep 2, 2013 16:01 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
> I wonder if the share of free licenses has flattened out
Given the growth of online university courses, and their preference for non-commercial licences, a flattening out is indeed possible.
Non-free licenses Posted Sep 6, 2013 2:59 UTC (Fri) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link]
I doubt online university courses would make a dent in the proportions at all; not enough of them, especially considering the recent explosion of massively online "open" courses typically don't offer any license at all.
The numbers in that graph are dominated by photos on Flickr, scraped from http://flickr.com/creativecommons where, just glancing now, there has been almost no change from the last time I looked, http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2012/12/12/cc-flickr-unchang...
The other component of that graph was link: queries from Yahoo, which are obviously no longer available. That's one reason the graph hasn't been updated.
Other things could be done to characterize changes in license use, but as far as I know nobody's trying. There's nothing obvious that would cause a big spike or shift.
The nearest thing would be a relatively obscure option to use CC-BY on YouTube; if that were counted I'd expect CC-BY's proportion to tip up a bit (with caveat many things are tagged incorrectly on YT...). Other things, like publisher and artist going for CC-BY-NC[-*], wikis going for CC-BY-SA were well established years ago and no reason to expect any significant change.
Villa: Thoughts on the CC Summit Posted Sep 5, 2013 14:55 UTC (Thu) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359) [Link]
I really wish they’d call them Restricted Commons licences, too. I do.
Restricted Commons Posted Sep 6, 2013 3:16 UTC (Fri) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link]
Indeed, changing the branding of the non-free licenses would've been the best feasible option (possibly along with making them even more restrictive: an unrecognized sad thing about NC/ND is that they haven't actually been used in much by entities that have an existing licensing revenue stream to "protect" -- among other reasons, such entities find even the current vaguely defined NC too scary -- and some tiny amount of good could come from such entities using restrictive public licenses -- see them as promises not to prosecute for filesharing). I suggested both two years ago, but for various reasons CC is too conservative to make such a change.
|
|||||||||||||
