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”.

10 Comments

  1. John Barstow
    Posted February 1, 2007 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

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

  2. desrt
    Posted February 1, 2007 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

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

  3. Peter
    Posted February 1, 2007 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    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
    Posted February 1, 2007 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

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

  5. Posted February 1, 2007 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

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

  6. Posted February 1, 2007 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

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

    It’s just a blog. Be nice.

  7. Posted February 1, 2007 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    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
    Posted February 1, 2007 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    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. Posted February 2, 2007 at 5:30 am | Permalink

    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
    Posted February 5, 2007 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    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?