zotz:

Not sure you still monitor the site but I am interested in your historical comment, as well as the (apparently settled?) debate in the cc community over what constitutes an “open” license. I suspect the decision to discard (cc)BY-SA in favor of (cc)BY-NC has had significant consequences for the project, and not merely in terms of what users choose to contribute or re-use.

As an early ccHost implementer I wrestled with some of this myself but reached a different conclusion. My aging, unsupported ccHost instance leaves the would-be user responsible for vetting license type compatibility. The site never really took off but the experience was…educational. Going it alone? Not advised, certainly not if you lack time and development resources.

The ccc and ccMixter arguments were apparently settled well before my time here, but I had a few spare cycles and was searching the fora for license keywords. I thought I’d carve a few words in this bench even if you aren’t around to read them. Go in peace.

Y

Since the site’s aim, really, was to start the biggest band in the world with the best musicians, we had to have license choices that were compatible…. or you couldn’t legally remix things. For instance, if you took a sample with CC-BY-SA, there’d be a whole bunch of samples that were just off limits to you. You couldn’t use them. You’d be stuck with CC-0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA. Everything else would be incompatible.

That really wasn’t compatible with the aim of getting the best singers belting to the compositions of the best composers, remixed by the best remixers. We want musicians to delight in what they find and toss whatever they want together…. not to be lawyers first, and musicians second. :)

I have a quibble with these explanations of why SA was dropped, in light of the fact that NC was retained. As discussed on the creative commons website, NC licenses are not considered “open” today, because they restrict future use.

The problem of “mixing” SA and NC works could have been resolved by dropping support for NC instead. I opine the three choices you mention are preferable to the three we are “stuck with” now: CC0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-NC.

My principal objection to NC is that the restriction can be added in remix. I believe strongly that NC added to a derivative work diminishes any included CC-BY content by overriding author intent. A CC-BY author’s only recourse is to add NC at the outset—a poor option for those who find NC mean-spirited—or to post elsewhere.

I guess the site takes a “creator first” point of view. A lot of our contributors would not be willing to foreclose on the potential commercial worth of their offerings (which for some of them are considerable.)

The number of creators at the site, from what I’ve seen, who are married to the idea that their license must be viral is likely dwarfed by our users who prefer to preserve the potential commerciality of what they’ve done. As someone who’s done CC-BY uploads, I’m firmly in the BSD rather than Gnu camp, myself. My CC-BY offering is a gift, and I’m not willing to forcibly constrain or expand the generosity of the giving of any of my remix successors, who have put in efforts of their own.

I can’t foresee a change, given the culture of the community, and the needs of the remix tree.

First, thanks so much for your demonstrative CC-BY remix! And for an explanation I can “buy”: that -NC suited the prospective interests of professional users, while -SA might not have done.

Both restrictions have valid uses in the broader ccc. I just feel they are often applied needlessly, and that -SA is the better defense against the corporate media hegemony preventing a more successful creative community in the US. (Though individuals can suck, too: on the parallel UK color debate, for example, I sympathize with Semple, not Kapoor ;-)).

So I am mostly happy to license the work I do post on ccMixter under CC-BY. But I just also do -SA work by serious intent, so I can’t work here as wholeheartedly as I might like.

But back on the feature request topic! I do think a more obvious way to reach out to members to discuss licensing and alternate use might be useful, especially where commercial restrictions are in place. Currently, one can bounce between the classic pages, beta, and digg to try and figure this out, and become pretty confused. Of course, user contact opt-in should be retained (assuming Allow anonymous contact actually still works).

Perhaps this only makes sense under the aegis of a broader homologation of the site, a dream facing its own cultural hurdles.