[cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl
Paul Keller
pk at kl.nl
Mon Jul 2 14:25:49 EDT 2007
nope... there were no statements regarding this during the isummit so
i believe that there had been no movement in this field as of lately.
but than i also did not really ask anyone... /paul
On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
--
paul keller | knowledgeland
t: +31205756720 | e: pk at kl.nl | www.knowledgeland.org
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list