Comments on: two questions about creative commons http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/ a lowercase manifesto Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:31:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Barstow http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-162 John Barstow Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/#comment-162 The "No Derivatives" clause has *always* been an option, however, uptake has been very low. The “No Derivatives” clause has *always* been an option, however, uptake has been very low.

]]> By: desrt http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-163 desrt Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/#comment-163 huh. i always remember there only being 3 addons: non-commercial, attribution and share-alike. huh. i always remember there only being 3 addons: non-commercial, attribution and share-alike.

]]> By: Peter http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-164 Peter Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/#comment-164 Above is correct. "No derivative works" has always been<br/>an option. You can see it in the very first announcement<br/>of the license types in 2002, courtesy of the Wayback<br/>Machine:<p/><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20020913043654/http://www.creativecommons.org/">http://web.archive.org/web/20020913043654/http://www.creativecommons.org/</a><p/>If you have a problem with CC, it sure seems like you've<br/>always had a problem with CC. Nothing new here.<br/>Shouldn't you retract your post?<br/> 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?

]]> By: Anders http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Anders Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/#comment-165 No Derivative Works makes makes sense as a license for application icons and logos.<br/> No Derivative Works makes makes sense as a license for application icons and logos.

]]> By: Jens Geiregat http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-166 Jens Geiregat Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/#comment-166 It also makes sense for podcasts. Lugradio uses that license. Check their forums for discussions about using it. It also makes sense for podcasts. Lugradio uses that license. Check their forums for discussions about using it.

]]> By: Murray Cumming http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-167 Murray Cumming Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/#comment-167 Peter wrote:<br/>> Shouldn't you retract your post?<p/>It's just a blog. Be nice. Peter wrote:
> Shouldn’t you retract your post?

It’s just a blog. Be nice.

]]> By: Chris Cunningham http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-168 Chris Cunningham Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/#comment-168 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.<p/> - Chris<br/> 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

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-169 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/#comment-169 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 ;) 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 ;)

]]> By: Chris http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-170 Chris Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/#comment-170 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.<p/><a href="http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html">http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html</a> 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

]]> By: clausi http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-171 clausi Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2007/02/01/two-questions-about-creative-commons/#comment-171 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").<p/>So maybe your confusion is due to some kind of misunderstanding? 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?

]]>