On 1/16/08, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/01/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
So is it useful for us to add CC0 as a licence
option equivalent to
our "public domain or equivalent" (where, if public domain release is
not possible, the work is licenced for use by anyone for any purpose)?
How's the uptake of CC0?
If we added such an option, I imagine it would be to /replace/
PD-self, not as something alongside it. It seems like it could be a
reasonable thing for us to do but I expect our legal heads to give it
a once-over first.
Input encouraged from legal and non-legal heads...
As for uptake, it was literally launched a few months
ago,
The project was first mentioned 2007-11-14 at
http://public.resource.org/case_law_announcement.html and is now in a
public discussion phase. There should be zero uptake at this point, as
it isn't ready to use. :)
so there is
no uptake to speak of. The Open Clipart Library (OCAL) is planning to
switch to it (they were previously using CC-PD, public domain
dedication).
There will probably be a long list of existing CC PD dedication users
and others publishing copyright-free stuff ready to implement CC0,
when it is ready, but that will take some time.
I am a bit confused as to how the second bit works,
"providing a means by which
any person can assert that there are no copyrights in a particular work,
in a way that allows others to judge the reliability of that assertion."
*imagines digg-style voting on PD justifications*
mm... not quite.
More likely curators that have already built up reputation offline,
like museums, but assertions on a community site could be more or less
trusted depending on the community. I'd probably trust information
that survives on Wikimedia Commons more than that which gets voted up
on a digg style site. :)
To be clear, CC isn't building a trust metric, but hopes that with
some standards around such assertions others could build such metrics.
Mike