This essay describes a way to improve the public image of Creative Commons, especially with Free Software users and advocates.
One of the major criticisms leveled against Creative Commons (CC) by people such as Benjamin "Mako" Hill in his article Towards a Standard of Freedom: Creative Commons and the Free Software Movement is that the various licences are not distinguished from each other as to their value in ensuring freedom to the licensor.
To summarize: Creative Commons has 6 "parametrized" licences that allow, at the base, free verbatim non-commercial redistribution in any medium. This has been called the "least common denominator" for freely redistributable content; most of the licences also allow other use. Two of the licences are at least prima facie compatible with Free Software, namely the Attribution-ShareAlike licence (a copyleft licence) and the Attribution licence (a non-copyleft free licence). CC also have a few licences that don't allow free non-commercial verbatim redistribution, including the Sampling and Sampling Plus licence (only derivative works allowed) and the Developing Nations licences (only distribution in certain countries allowed).
The criticism is that CC doesn't make a clear distinction -- moral or technical -- between the licences that are compatible at least in intention with Free Software (the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licences), those that are not compatible with Free Software but allow the "base case" of free non-commercial verbatim redistribution, and those that don't allow even that base case. Since CC does not make those distinctions, the project must be measured by its least free products, and that measurement merits rejection.
Making distinctions
I disagree that the lack of distinctions makes Creative Commons practically useless. I do agree, however, that it is possible to at least delineate those licences that are compatible with Free Software with those that are not. I think that by doing so, CC can provide a clearer "upgrade path" for creators who are starting out in the world of Free Content, and let them know that there's room for improvement.
I think that the way to do this is not to change Creative Commons, or to drop support for the less preferable licences. I think it'd be more productive to change other organizations' relationship to the project.
To wit: I think that groups with an interest in Free Software and Free Software licences, like Debian, the Free Software Foundation, and the Open Source Institute, should approve particular CC licences as being compatible with Free Software. Creative Commons, in turn, should list those endorsements on the licence deeds and in the licence chooser, so that licencees and licensors can understand the value of choosing one or the other licence.
Here are the steps I see necessary to making these distinctions possible:
- After the Creative Commons 3.0 licences have been released, Creative Commons should submit the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licences to the Open Source Institute for approval. If such approval is given, CC should add the OSI logo to the licence deeds for those licences, and to the licence chooser.
- Debian and/or debian-legal should make a decision as to the compatibility of the Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. If this decision is published, Creative Commons should add the Debian Open Use Logo to the licence chooser and licence deeds to indicate the compatibility.
- The Free Software Foundation should make a decision as to the "freeness" of the 3.0 licences. They already describe the 2.0 licences as "free licences" (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Otherlicenses ) although they're officially discouraged due to the lack of distinction as mentioned above. Creative Commons should note which licences are called "free" by the FSF, although it should be made clear that the FSF doesn't endorse Creative Commons (whatever that means).
Largely this is a matter of review and approval by outside bodies, as well as some embracing of those bodies by Creative Commons. I think that if a distinction is made between endorsement or at least review of certain CC licences and endorsement of the project as a whole, this can be a positive experience for all parties.
Each organization listed above has different criteria for determining a "free" license. The OSI has made its core purpose to approve and disapprove license, and to lend its name and logo to those licenses that meet its standards. Debian and the FSF have not. The FSF lists free and non-free licenses, and makes suggestions about which licenses should or should not be used, but it's never been clear whether and how 3rd-party organizations can refer to these reviews.
Debian's review process is even more murky. We've had a hard time agreeing on any approval or disapproval of licences, and I don't think any third party has referred to that approval or disapproval in their documentation or on their Web site. So I think there's some careful footwork that needs to be done to make sure that use of the logo and name is OK.
Free verbatim non-commercial redistribution
Some people seem to think that free verbatim non-commercial redistribution is a worthy goal for some types of content. I think that's less interesting and less worth noting than Free Software compatibility, which is probably why there isn't a Free Verbatim Non-Commercial Redistribution organization out there.
However, I think the above principles could apply to such an organization, and that they could develop some sort of logo and vetting process for licences. I think that there are probably some organizations who could make this happen; the Free Content Definition folks might want to work on a "Free Enough" definition.