>> I'm not sure I would support having Creative Commons be the default though... >> while it is an excellent option for some work and I have used it for some content >> I have developed, it does reduce the creator's rights that are normally assumed >> by the Berne convention or US copyright laws.
This is true. With the four component options available for CC, many scenarios are covered: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/ But not all. All of the CC options assume you allow redistribution, but aside from that in most cases "Copy-No Mod" would be equivalent to something like "Attribution No Derivatives" and "Copy-Mod" would essentially be "Attribution Share-Alike" or "Attribution Non-Commercial." What's missing is a "No Distribution" clause. If the organizers had the foresight to be complete, rather then altruistic, the addition of a non-redistribution clause IMHO would have made for the ultimate mix/match license. An "All rights reserved, you are licensed to use this for personal use" type clause for "No Perms" would be good. Lots of ideas, and there will be lots of complexity -- and of course we don't want to start handing out legal advice -- but as others have mentioned, if we start with some way of adding asset meta data -- we can then grow from there. Now of course, for specific grids like say <cough>OSGrid</cough> -- where I suspect the admin's aren't really in this to be IP rights cops, and probably don't want people coming after them with lawyers because some bug exposed an exploitable asset copy mechanism, or because someone connected a hacked region to the grid to suck assets out -- perhaps having the default licensing be something like CC -- which always guarantees redistribution isn't such a bad thing? -- Michael Cortez _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev