Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Call for more license options - Creative Commons Legal Code

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Call for more license options - Creative Commons Legal Code
  • Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:21:46 -0500

On Monday 28 March 2005 10:02 pm, Greg London wrote:
> Drew,
>
> I'd have to say this license you're proposing is
> nigh indistinguishable from ShareAlike.
> The burden that comes with adding "YetAnotherLicense"
> needs be offset by sufficient differences between
> the new license and every other CC license.
>
> THis is more like cc-sa-2.0 and cc-sa-2.1
> as far as differences.
>
> The problem is that with the extra luggage of YAL,
> you end up with a copyleft license that won't
> qualify as "free". And that's two big points
> against it.
>
> The argument for it is to prevent someone from
> aggregating you SA work with non-SA work and
> selling the lot of it. But it doesn't solve
> the problem, it reduces it by 15%. (there are
> plenty of other ways your work could be sold
> by evil corporate powers that don't involve
> aggregations)
>
> So, you're looking at -2 against and .15 for
> and it's not looking good in my mind.

Can you explain the other ways? And if you see anyway to prevent them while
maintaining the "spirit" of the license? I am open to being convinced that it
was a foolish thought.

The fact that it looks a lot like CC BY-SA is because I like CC BY-SA and
want
something like it.

Look, I have tow things I am exploring.

1. Is it possible to write a license to do what I want without killing the
good things I like about BY-SA?

2. Given that it is possible, does it make sense to do it?

Thanks again for your input.

all the best,

drew




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page