Anatoly Volynets

“ Unrestricted use of a work provides for possible wide exposure. However, without mandatory attribution, unrestricted use allows a user to omit reference to an author and, in such a case, does not serve the author at all. As mentioned before, an author’s rights can be sold; this is the way the great majority of authors earn money nowadays. However, such sales provide considerable material incentives to only a select few, the selection of whom depends least of all on the brilliance of the work.
Legalities No specific law addresses the need for open licenses. So, how would such a license work? ”

“ The requirement to notify an author of use is just an indirect restriction of use. The requirement to only attribute puts no restrictions on the use of a work, provides the most possible exposure and thus furnishes the conditions for the work’s normal cultural function. ”

“ We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software (. . .)
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that re-distributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone’s free use or not licensed at all (. . .) ”

“ Public use without it is unacceptable and is the only real theft which may happen in cultural affairs. Use of a creative work without attribution is neither normal nor fair, regardless of legality or incentives to the author. ”

“ Ultimate freedom of use of a cultural phenomenon—creative, public, commercial, etc.—is allowed. Attribution to an author, or authors, if used publicly or commercially is mandatory. Attribution to a source and original source, when possible, if used publicly or commercially is mandatory. Attribution to the sponsors of the source is mandatory. The following are limitations of the license:
The license was designed so that it does not impose any limitations on the normal functioning of cultural phenomena. ”

“ The free software and open source software communities have inspired what is sometimes called ‘open content.’ Some copyright holders have made books, music, and other creative works available under licenses that give anyone permission to copy and make other uses of the works without specific permission or a royalty payment. Creative Commons hopes to build on the work of these pioneers by creating a menu of license provisions that people can combine to make their work available for copying and creative reuses (...) ”

“ Virtually all open licenses are claimed by their developers to be based on copyright law. A rights holder, having been granted them by law, can relinquish some of the rights. In order to do so, he provides a contract to a user. This legal position has some weak points, though:
Any license based on copyright law lasts as long as the copyright. Copyright laws provide different rights in different countries. Cultural affairs are not regulated only by copyrights. ”

“ Those who intend to use a CC-tagged work should learn which exact license is applicable. CC developers put freedom of choice for the copyright holder above all. Such freedom means the liberty to invent and enforce or relinquish all kinds of restrictions. Thus, a CC license may barely differ from copyright on one end of the license spectrum and yet offer ultimate, public domain-like freedom of use on the other. The following are advantages applicable in different combinations to different CC licenses:
Freedom of use depends on the specific license. ”

“ Obviously, a license, which is supposed to support the normal existence of a creative work, should somehow adjust to the above limitations. Thus, it is necessary for such a license to be backed through legal means that are included in the actual text of the license itself.
Analysis of Some Open Licenses The above text provides a logical framework for analyzing licenses that govern cultural affairs. This framework does not address music, songs, or any other specific area, but it does address different fundamental culture-related ssues. ”

“ First, arts, sciences, and even engineering, intertwine to such a degree nowadays that it is often hard to distinguish between fields, genres and laws applicable to a single work. Second, we have seen that the nature of creativity is the same in any human activity. ”

“ It is limited to use in music-related areas only. It does not offer incentives to the publishers and sponsors of work and, consequently, limits the author’s incentives. There is a contradiction in the terms where the license grants perpetual rights to the public while it can only last as long as the copyright. ”

“ The only common feature of all exclusively CC licenses, apparently, is free noncommercial use of a work of art, but this is never directly stated, so it is in question. They are not limited to a specific art. They expand the legal base internationally. ”

“ The following are limitations of the licenses:
Some of them do not require attribution to an author. Some of them do not require reference to a publisher. Some of them do not allow creative use of a work, such as modifying, building upon, sampling, performing, etc. They are based on copyright law only. They do not prevent the sale of rights. They are applicable only to the arts. Public Domain No entity using a work in the public domain owes anything to anyone in terms of money or attribution. ”