On Oct 8, 2012 7:32 AM, "Robert J. Lang" <robert
<[email protected]>@<[email protected]>
langorigami.com <[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Thus spake "Jean-Christophe Helary"
> <jean.christophe.helary<[email protected]>
@ <[email protected]>gmail.com<[email protected]>>
on
> 10/7/12 11:52 PM:
>
> >Are the existing licenses already defined ?
>
> Well the rightsowner project (which is what would define the existing
> licenses) hasn't started up, so they're not defined yet. But I expect they
> will be early in the discussions.
>
As far as the licenses go, it seems like there are just a handful of things
out would have to cover. The creative commons license operates under a neat
structure, where there are a few different parameters (commercial use,
share-alike, attribution) that can be set independently to fit the
creator's wishes. And any of them can be waived by the rights holder on a
case-by-case basis. It seems like a similar kind of license would cover
basically all the different cases, while not being overly complicated.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
