[cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl
pk at kl.nl
Mon Jul 2 14:19:31 EDT 2007
to provide some background here are two links to an article by Mia
Garlik explaining the rationale behind the changes in version 3.0 of
the CC licenses. the full article can be found here: http://
On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Paul Keller wrote:
> hmm. there is no point in interoperability (as in being able to
> relicense something that was originally under one of the licenses
> under the other): the GPL is intended for software, the CC licenses
> are for works under copyright that are *not* software. as rob
> explained distributing CC-BY-SA and GPL licensed works together is
> fine both under the GPL and the CC-BY-SA. the only 'problem' in this
> regard is the position of Debian legal. as far as i know they are
> still deliberating if they are going to consider CC-BY-SA 3.0 (which
> resolved most of the issues they had with the pervious versions) free
> according to the DFSG or not. one would hope that they will.
>> will be see two 'prosumers' sitting on a bench, one asking "is
>> that an
>> 'organisation for free licences'?" and the other replying "no!
>> thats a
>> free license organsation!... wankers!"
>> and i won't even get started on asking questions about the FDL...i've
>> already made up my mind on that one...
> as i said before the GFDL is one of the obvious candidates for
> inclusion in the list of CC compatible licenses. if i am not entirely
> mistaken the incompatibility between CC-BY-SA and GFDL is the main
> reason for the inclusion of the compatability clause in CC-BY-SA 3.0.
> i am not really getting why the GFDL seems to be get you even more
> upset when thinking about compatibility. in the case of the GFDL
> there is a real need for compatibility as both licenses are intended
> for the same type of works, namely non-software works protected by
More information about the cc-licenses