Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RyanD" data-source="post: 3643073" data-attributes="member: 3312">Yes.&nbsp; Because I think the Creative Commons licenses are a confusing mess.One of the primary goals of the Open Gaming project was to bring clarity and sense to the field of copyright as it applies to game materials.&nbsp; The Creative Commons system does not do that.&nbsp; Instead, it creates an even more confusing mess than the regular copyright laws do.Too many people are looking for &quot;loopholes&quot; to avoid their responsibilities to the community, and to the creators of the content licensed for Open Gaming.&nbsp; Creative Commons gives those people a playground.&nbsp; If something can be misconstrued, used in error, overlooked, or outright ignored, some portion of the public will do it.&nbsp; We saw enough of this kind of nonsense in the first couple of years of working with the OGL (which by comparison is a dirt-simple license) that it seemed impossible to me to ever rectify the problems with the whole creative commons scheme.Even after reading it again just now, I can't tell you if the CC-Attribution license would allow a user to insert a limitation requiring free distribution of derivative materials, for example.&nbsp; (Not saying it doesn't - saying that I can't easily figure out if it does or doesn't.)&nbsp; Many licenses of this type are designed to make sure you can't be forced to charge a fee for distributing the work, but they often leave a hole where someone can insist that you can't charge a fee even if you want to when you distribute the work.I think the Creative Commons team is trying to kill too many birds with too many stones.Ryan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RyanD, post: 3643073, member: 3312"] Yes. Because I think the Creative Commons licenses are a confusing mess. One of the primary goals of the Open Gaming project was to bring clarity and sense to the field of copyright as it applies to game materials. The Creative Commons system does not do that. Instead, it creates an [b]even more confusing[/b] mess than the regular copyright laws do. Too many people are looking for "loopholes" to avoid their responsibilities to the community, and to the creators of the content licensed for Open Gaming. Creative Commons gives those people a playground. If something can be misconstrued, used in error, overlooked, or outright ignored, some portion of the public will do it. We saw enough of this kind of nonsense in the first couple of years of working with the OGL (which by comparison is a dirt-simple license) that it seemed impossible to me to ever rectify the problems with the whole creative commons scheme. Even after reading it again just now, I can't tell you if the CC-Attribution license would allow a user to insert a limitation requiring free distribution of derivative materials, for example. (Not saying it doesn't - saying that I can't easily figure out if it does or doesn't.) Many licenses of this type are designed to make sure you [b]can't be forced to charge a fee[/b] for distributing the work, but they often leave a hole where someone can insist [b]that you can't charge a fee even if you want to[/b] when you distribute the work. I think the Creative Commons team is trying to kill too many birds with too many stones. Ryan [/QUOTE]

Verification