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 thoughts on “two questions about creative commons”

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

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

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

  7. 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. 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 ;)

  10. 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?

Comments are closed.