«
»

two questions about creative commons

question 1: when did creative commons start offering the No Derivative Works add-on to creative commons licenses?

question 2: how long until we see the iPodOnly add-on?

((ipod art lifted from rstevens of diesel sweeties))

edit: i understand that for some people and some types of work, “no derivatives” makes sense. i understand that even “you have to give me money” makes sense as a license. i don’t have anything against either. i merely think that someone who says “you can’t use my work in the creation of another work” isn’t really putting their work into what i would call a “creative commons”.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 1st, 2007 at 1:21 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

10 Responses to “two questions about creative commons”

  1. John Barstow says:
    February 1, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    The “No Derivatives” clause has *always* been an option, however, uptake has been very low.

  2. desrt says:
    February 1, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    huh. i always remember there only being 3 addons: non-commercial, attribution and share-alike.

  3. Peter says:
    February 1, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    Above is correct. “No derivative works” has always been
    an option. You can see it in the very first announcement
    of the license types in 2002, courtesy of the Wayback
    Machine:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20020913043654/http://www.creativecommons.org/

    If you have a problem with CC, it sure seems like you’ve
    always had a problem with CC. Nothing new here.
    Shouldn’t you retract your post?

  4. Anders says:
    February 1, 2007 at 7:26 pm

    No Derivative Works makes makes sense as a license for application icons and logos.

  5. Jens Geiregat says:
    February 1, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    It also makes sense for podcasts. Lugradio uses that license. Check their forums for discussions about using it.

  6. Murray Cumming says:
    February 1, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    Peter wrote:
    > Shouldn’t you retract your post?

    It’s just a blog. Be nice.

  7. Chris Cunningham says:
    February 1, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    It’s the no-distribution ones I really like. Creative Commons isn’t anything other than a clever-sounding attempt to layer something on top of existing copyright systems. It certainly isn’t a social movement.

    – Chris

  8. Anonymous says:
    February 1, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    Google for mako’s writings on the topic; you’re of course correct that no derivs makes a mockery of any ‘commons’. (Unfortunately it is the most or second most popular license, iirc. Google for that too- i’m on an N800 right now s no tabs ;)

  9. Chris says:
    February 2, 2007 at 5:30 am

    Yeah, I was going to point you at Mako too. CC doesn’t try to make ethical statements, it’s just a marketplace for people to choose licenses.

    http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html

  10. clausi says:
    February 5, 2007 at 12:12 am

    I believe, “creative” did refer as to the kind of licensed works, namely creative works, not to what you can do with it (ie. being “creative”).

    So maybe your confusion is due to some kind of misunderstanding?