CC licenses are missing an important relation between the source code and the binary form of the creation.
For architect this distinction is long known and was supported in Alberti's writings. The architect is the designer and not the builder.
A photo, article or video don't have a source code that is needed to render it to it's final form, while software and architecture have.
The missing distinction raises unanswered questions like:
does the owner of a building receive rights in the design?
Which rights do the users of the building receive? What about the renters?
Are they all receiving "rights" in the design?
My answer is that we need a license that cannot be applied on built form of the creation.
Open hardware license might fit to architecture, but it's too complex and has many specific definitions that are not relevant to our field (like documentation, software licenses).
So I find the Open Architecture license better:
- Simple and short
- Provides credits to the authors
- Waive liabilities or guarantees
- No restrictions on commercial work
- It has the word "Architecture" in it to help us to distribute the idea the architecture can be distributed under an open-source license.