[sldev] Re: Permissions - A content creator's view (michi@luskwood.org)

[Nicholaz Beresford]

> That's a much better idea. Adding a trapdoored license field to the 
> permissions system pointing to a notecard (by UUID), allowing you to put 
> an irrevocable covenant on the asset, would do as well... and be far 
> more versatile. For example, it would mean that people wouldn't be able 
> to say they "didn't know" that the GPLed script in the no-mod avatars 
> they're selling was covered by the GPL.
> 
> Right click on the object and select "license" and it'll show you all 
> the licenses on that object or its content. The license could even be 
> set so you have to approve it to accept the object, though I suspect 
> many people will decide to shun vendors who abuse that option.
> 
> That way if you bought the product from "Honest John" and the license 
> says "This object is only to be sold by Original Creator", you know that 
> "Honest John" didn't just set the "no sale" bit.

I'm all for that, because this would also address another idea I'm having.

A lot of Creative Commons work (and I'm purposefully avoiding the the term
"art") is driven by attribution.  Being it the idea to build a reputation
or simply personal satisfaction.  In fact I once read an article that a
lot of contributions in the sci-fi scene is driven what the author called
ego-points.

Such a "creators notice" field or even something more advanced could serve
to fuel people's drive to create free content, if there is an intangible
benefit for it.  It would automatically serve as a more prominent form
of attribution (more prominent than more, more inspect) and would probably
be used in more creative forms (Killroy was here!), which in return may
make it more interesting to actually look at these.


Nick

Second Life from the inside out:
http://nicholaz-beresford.blogspot.com/