Tower / Paul Holloway / CC BY-SA
We are pleased to post draft 2 of 4.0 for public discussion. This comes after several months of substantive conversations on a number of policy issues, with input solicited from our global community on the CC license-development list (archive), through affiliate consultations, via comments posted directly on our 4.0 wiki, and submissions to staff.
We fielded comments from an impressive number of jurisdictions — more than 50 by our estimate. The combined input reflects an incredibly diverse set of opinions and an equally diverse group of constituents. Individual creators, educators and educational institutions, governments, policy makers, academics and many others all added their voices to the conversation. We received a great deal of input and revision proposals, and people shared many informed (and sometimes passionate) opinions on a wide range of topics. And while compromise and consensus are not always achievable, we feel the decisions reflected in draft 2 are well grounded and considered.
Indeed, several decisions to leave existing 3.0 provisions unchanged (such as the scope of NonCommercial and ShareAlike, as well as the prohibition on TPMs) follow threads of consensus that emerged during the process. Moreover, they are consistent with our responsibility as a steward to avoid disrupting expectations absent a compelling justification and corresponding (anticipated) benefit. These outcomes also further the goals and objectives established for 4.0. We encourage a close review of the relevant pages on the 4.0 wiki for details on these decisions and more. Thanks to all who contributed to improving the 4.0 draft.
Although much progress has been made, policy and other topics remain that will benefit from your input before the next draft is published in October. Although we will be focusing much of the discussion on an identified set of issues, input on any topic or proposal of interest is welcome. Among others, we plan to solicit feedback and discuss branding and related proposals for the NC (and possibly ND) licenses, and to continue work toward compatibility with other licenses. We will also be examining in more detail how the licenses work with data and databases to ensure they operate smoothly and as expected.
Note that this 4.0d2 comment period is shorter than the previous, and is expected to close in early September.
Please contribute to this next important step in the versioning process, and watch for updates on this weblog. You can give your input on open issues and the current draft by joining and posting to the CC license development and versioning list, or by contributing ideas directly to the 4.0 wiki.
Thanks again for a productive comment period. We look forward to hearing from you in this second and equally important phase.
Good day,
I am not sure if this has been covered : what about a creative commons license that is non-profit ? As in it works similarly to the creative commons non-commercial license but allows the user to recover costs of distribution of material ?
The reason I suggest this, is that in many developing nations people still make extensive use of hard copy versions of freely available soft-copy data/products etc. There is a cost to make these hard copies. As I understand it the non-commercial license does not allow the exchange of any monies. So by reproducing a work that is under creative commons non-commercial they lose money, this often means that that these valuable works cannot get to those who need them as very few people can absorb the costs of reproduction.
Whereas something along the line of ‘non-profit’ could mean that the organisation is allowed to ‘sell’ the work only so far as to recover the cost of reproduction, no profit or extra charges are allowed. I realise this could be used incorrectly but I feel it would at least allow NGOs etc to be more willing to reproduce these works that will help people. The would do this because they can do so legally without bankrupting them or taking away money from other activities, which is important in these tough funding times.
An immediate example would be the reproduction of creative commons text books, user manuals etc, which involve not cost if used in their electronic format but can amount to a fair amount of money when they are made into hard copies.
Thank you for all the hard work,
Tyrel
Very nice draft….