[cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl
Prodromos Tsiavos
p.tsiavos at lse.ac.uk
Mon Jul 2 14:23:13 EDT 2007
Paul, do you by any chance know what is the status of development of the CC
Compatible Licence list?
many thanks
pRo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Keller" <pk at kl.nl>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
<cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl
> 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://
> wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3
>
> 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.
>
> see: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Debian
>
>>> 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
>> copyright.
>
> see: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#BY-
> SA_.E2.80.94_Compatibility_Structure_Introduced
>
> /paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list