The question of whether or not the Terra Nova blog should be licensed under the Creative Commons has been raised. While some have worried that this might appear to be pimping for Professor Lessig, it is certainly an intriguing idea.
I was elected to post because Second Life will soon be working with the helpful people at CC.org to figure out how to best apply the various CC licenses within a virtual space. Many of the CC licenses directly map onto existing SL permissions, but some permissions don't have CC analogs. For example, there is no real world CC license for the Second Life permission "Buyer may copy, but not transfer, this texture" which is used to protect the seller of repeating textures, like bricks, without forcing the customer to buy one copy of the texture for each geometric object she wants to texture. Julian and Lawrence have also proposed the very interesting idea of allowing SL users to search and view the world based on whether the objects allow copying/reuse.
So far, the following licenses have been proposed:
The Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial License, which means that any use of TN postings must be attributed, may not be used commercially, and may not be used for derived works.
The Attribution-NoDerivs License, which is the is the same but allows commerial use if attributed.
Attribution-ShareAlike License, which allows commercial work and derived works, but any derived works need to be shared with the same license.
For an example of this at work, you can check out Julian's website, which is now licensed under CC.
So what do you think?
Well given how much we talk about IP here and the relationship between 'gods' and mortals (possilbly i'm demi-god in this respect) its ironic we have not taken a stance. I'm all for CC, i'm just not sure which one - oh choices choices. Thing is just like an MMO the gods get to decide but the impact is on all in the burgoning community.
The bit that i'm not clear on is the commercial \ non-commercial options of the CC liscence. I cant see a problem with the commercial option but i've probably not thought through the wider implications yet.
ren
www.renreynolds.com
Posted by: ren | Jan 08, 2004 at 17:54
Duh I meant to put in my opinion but forgot to. Given that SL is going to pick up CC, I'm all for it. My opinion is that the Attribution-ShareAlike License is the most appropriate.
Cory
Posted by: Cory Ondrejka | Jan 08, 2004 at 18:09
Academic integrity might suggest Attribution-NoDerivs...but I'm Attribution-ShareAlike by nature (and who would debate that works which allow derivatives end up being the most influential?).
Posted by: Euphrosyne | Jan 08, 2004 at 18:55
I have absolutely no idea why you would NOT select Attribution-ShareAlike... but like Ren said, I'm probably just not seeing the implications of doing so. Oh, and I know utterly nothing about this sort of thing. =)
Posted by: Michael Chui | Jan 09, 2004 at 02:32
Given the intellectual and educational nature of TN discussions and also their exploratory/provocative tendencies, Attribution-Share Alike screams out to me. I would think the owners/operators/posters of TN would *want* to see some commercial products relating to these discussions, especially if it brings about greater notoriety and press attention. Personally, I would like to see derivative works since, as Euphrosyne points out, the original works (especially here, where the original works are intellectual discussions) can become more influential and meaningful as a result of derivative products.
Posted by: Alan Stern | Jan 09, 2004 at 09:46
A clarification: Cory cites my site as an example of a CC-licensed blog, and the license I chose is the relatively restrictive Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial, but please don't construe that as a vote for how we license Terra Nova. The license I picked is just a sort of default for the websites of professional writers like me.
As for TN, to a first approximation I agree with everybody who's leaning toward Attribution-ShareAlike. I'm just a little confused about the implications of ShareAlike. Does it imply no commercial use by others? Or does it work like the GPL and therefore permit commercial use?
Posted by: Julian Dibbell | Jan 09, 2004 at 12:19
For those who haven't clicked on the license links (or explored the CC website in general), please do. They've really done an amazing job of explaining how CC works and providing both human readable and lawyer readable forms of the licenses.
The Attribution-ShareAlike allows commericial use of the work, so long as it is properly attributed. I think that Ren and Julian have good points about using different licenses for their own works but think that a more generous license is appropriate for TN.
Cory
Posted by: Cory Ondrejka | Jan 09, 2004 at 13:11
The creative commons people get huge props from me for their human readable licenses. I really wish more EULAs would do that.
It's frustrating to be given the raw assembly language code of licensing agreements and being asked to sign.
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Jan 09, 2004 at 14:23
So is it to be: Attribution-ShareAlike-NonCommercial ?
Or to put it a more decision pointing way - does anyone object ?
ren
www.renreynolds.com
Posted by: Ren | Jan 09, 2004 at 16:14
Ren, I think that ShareAlike and NonCommercial are somewhat mutually exclusive. My reading is that ShareAlike allows derivatives and commercial use, with the requirement that the ShareAlike license be attached to those works (and thus commerical usage can't end up with IP rights to your work).
Posted by: Euphrosyne | Jan 09, 2004 at 17:15
OK, just Attribution-ShareAlike then ?
Posted by: ren | Jan 09, 2004 at 17:29
"I think that ShareAlike and NonCommercial are somewhat mutually exclusive."
I don't see why. ShareAlike is just a sticky tag on the license. ShareAlike and NoDerivs are a mutually exclusive pair, Commerciality is orthogonal.
An Attribution-NonCommerce-ShareAlike license means:
1) You must attribute the source.
2) You cannot make commercial use.
3) You can make derivitive works, but they have sections 1, 2, & 3 attached.
That all being said, my two cents, for the little they should be worth, would be for an Attribution-ShareAlike.
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Jan 09, 2004 at 17:50
I was referring specifically to the CC Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license, and didn't realize there was a separate Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike after all. But if this forum hopes to influence commercial implementation of its topic, it seems counterproductive to restrict implementation of its ideas. (attribution will help everyone get the speaking fees and book deals that they deserve :)
Posted by: Euphrosyne | Jan 09, 2004 at 18:51
After giving it more thought, I think that Attribution-ShareAlike is the most appropriate CC license for TN and that going to a CC license makes sense. IMHO, Terra Nova is producing some good thoughts about online worlds, so we should want those ideas to be distributed. If some of those ideas end up in commercial works, properly attributed of course, then so much the better!
After all, the goal is better online worlds, right?
Posted by: Cory Ondrejka | Jan 09, 2004 at 18:55
That follows what I thought was right for TN I just did not know exactly what CC category it fell into.
So its Attribution-ShareAlike then ?
But I assume we need a 'commerical' tag too and that we are going for commerical not non-commecial as the former two keep us happy as per comments above.
ren
Posted by: ren | Jan 09, 2004 at 19:46
I guess I am coming down on the Attribution-Share Alike side of it too.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Jan 09, 2004 at 20:14
We had a discussion on this issue at grandtextauto last October, and haven't come to a resolution yet. For the time being we're putting individual CC licenses on individual posts as appropriate, for reasons described in our discussion...
http://grandtextauto.gatech.edu/archives/000101.html
Posted by: andrew stern | Jan 13, 2004 at 10:39
Quoting from http://grandtextauto.gatech.edu/archives/000101.htm
"Just putting a license on the front page might be a good solution for one person who has a blog that doesn't allow comments and never includes any content (text or images) from other sources, but that doesn't describe any blog I know of. On Grand Text Auto, we often have lengthy comments from others, and we like this. I don't claim to own these, and without claiming to own these, I can't offer them under a license. I very much oppose requiring that people who comment sign over any rights. You shouldn't have to agree to anything (except, obviously, to allow your comment to be posted on Grand Text Auto) if you want to join the discussion here. The point of a Creative Commons license is to allow people to choose to freely make their work available to the commons, not to force people to either surrender their rights or not speak in a forum like this."
"Personally, I've included a photo from another site in a post; I can't offer that under any sort of license, since I don't own it and it doesn't even reside on the Grand Text Auto server. Some of us have posted the comments of other people under our own name, with attribution and with permission to post them on the blog. But it's not clear that we have the right to offer this writing by other people under a license that we select. Even in the case of some of my own writing (e.g., drafts of articles) I may have the right to post something on Grand Text Auto but may not be allowed to offer it under a Creative Commons license, because of another agreement I've made."
One other Quote from the same page:
"Noah> If we want to offer all the things we contribute under a CC license, couldn't we say, "All contributions by [the GTxA drivers] are offered under [the CC license] unless otherwise noted"? Then we can mark a few places where we've contributed things that we can't offer this way, instead of having to mark almost everything we contribute with the fact it can be licensed this way."
Very good point(s), Andrew. I hadn't considered those particular implications.
On a tangential related note, under U.S. Copyright law, anyone can already make use of a copyrighted work if that use falls under "fair use." Fair use has its own set of factors to be considered and can be quite tricky and/or annoying at times. It's important to note that a CC license does not impinge on anyone's rights or abilities under "fair use." (As the people at CC clearly point out.)
Perhaps, although it necessitates additional legal language (something I usually try to avoid like the plague), with the CC license notice there should be a statement along the lines of "Anyone choosing to post on this website agrees to license their work under this same Creative Commons license [unless otherwise stated]." The text in the brackets is optional in that it allows for an author/poster to retain additional rights if they choose. (Something the site may or may not wish to allow.)
Posted by: Alan Stern | Jan 13, 2004 at 12:13
When this subject was originally tossed out I inquired what the pros and cons of tacking on a license were. To be honest, I'm feeling a bit more worried about the cons right now. The stuff from GTA is particularly instructive and points to the complicated authorship space that is the lifeblood of a blog like this. It also gets to one of the original pauses I had when reading the licensing options - the no derivatives clause: "You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work." Isn't that at the heart of science and scholarship though? Actually, isn't that at the heart of /culture/? This might be similar to what Euphrosyne pointed at. I know of course that there is a strong version of derivation that the clause seeks to address but I worry that underlying it is a presupposition about the weaker forms. Maybe that just puts me more in the ShareAlike camp but something about it all still causes me pause...
Posted by: T.L. | Jan 13, 2004 at 13:01
I see that a CC tag has been put on the main page, but note that it is a non-commercial license. I'm curious how that decision was made since the discussion seemed (to me) to favor commercial allowance. I realize there was some sentiment against, but those reasons were never made clear. Of course, I don't have a seat on the TN Security Council...
Posted by: Euphrosyne | Jan 20, 2004 at 12:52
Good question.
I think the answer is that the unarticulated standard here was either a supermajority or unanimity, and several members of the TN Security Council are currently at undisclosed locations where they couldn't be reached for comment.
Posted by: Greg Lastowka | Jan 20, 2004 at 13:27
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/
10만명의 회원들이 서로 가진 자료들을 공유하고있습니다
영화는 물론 토익 애니매이션 만화 성인물 등등..
서로가 가진 자료들을 공유해보세요.. 이것이 p2p의 장점입니다
한번 방문해보시면 절대 후회없는 p2p세계로 오실수있습니다.
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/ ◀이 주소로 가시면됩니다.
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/ ◀이 주소로 가시면됩니다.
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/ ◀이 주소로 가시면됩니다.
게시판 운영자님께 광고성글을 남겨 대단히 죄송합니다.
삭제 비번은 5012 입니다. 다시는 글남기지 않겠습니다.
즐거운하루되세요,.
Posted by: 공유실 | Jul 09, 2005 at 01:36
尖锐湿疣
排铅
尖锐湿疣
中国康网
成人用品
尖锐湿疣治疗
中国癌症网
肺癌
胃癌
肝癌
肾癌
食道癌
子宫颈癌
乳腺癌
卵巢癌
直肠癌
结肠癌
皮肤癌
甲状腺癌
胰腺癌
前列腺癌
膀胱癌
骨癌
鼻咽癌
脑瘤
癌症
乳腺癌
肺癌
胃癌
食管癌
肿瘤
直肠癌
结肠癌
肝癌
宫颈癌
脑瘤
甲状腺肿瘤
胆囊癌
胆管癌
前列腺癌
白血病
鼻咽癌
肾癌
恶性淋巴瘤
皮肤癌
喉癌
舌癌
胰腺癌
膀胱癌
健康网
癌症
抗癌中药
肿瘤
胶囊类
片剂类
丸剂类
口服液类
散剂冲剂
针剂类
外用药类
牛皮癣
白癜风
鱼鳞病
脂溢性皮炎
脂溢性脱发
斑秃脱发
湿疹
阴虱
带状疱疹
狐臭
青春痘
中国文秘网
皮肤病
皮肤病医药网
牛皮癣
脂溢性皮炎
斑秃
白癜风
鱼鳞病
脂溢性脱发
阴虱
生殖器疱疹
皮癣
湿疹
青春痘
螨虫
健康
播客天下
华东信息网
牛皮癣
白癜风
鱼鳞病
脂溢性皮炎
脂溢性脱发
斑秃脱发
湿疹
阴虱
带状疱疹
狐臭
青春痘
这里有名言警句 名言警句
这里是菜地 菜地有很多菜
他是兽人皇帝grubby 兽族皇帝grubbyorc,fighting!
想要美丽健康,去美丽健康网 美丽健康网
Posted by: 癌症治疗 | Oct 18, 2006 at 23:43