Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Compatibility workshop : FAL, CC by-sa

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Compatibility workshop : FAL, CC by-sa
  • Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:58:58 +0000

On 15 Nov 2005, at 20:53, Daniel Carrera wrote:

Assuming that BY-SA and FAL are very similar, it would be good to be
able to take BY-SA work and make it FAL and take FAL work and make it BY-SA.

If an individual wants their work licensed BY-SA as well as FAL they are free to do so. If two licences are different enough not to be the same licence, then those differences are presumably important and may matter to someone who has licensed their work under the other licence.

We've been here before with the aggregate relicensing clause in the 2.0 drafts and the backdoor for the Creative Archive licence in the UK-BY-SA-NC drafts. I don't think fitting back doors for minor licences into CC licences is a good idea at all.

I don't understand how those two items relate to freedom. You find the
CC licenses confusing and are concerned about the national adaptations.
Those are more of practical considerations than an issue of freedom.

Everybody and their aunt has a definition of "freedom". :-) The CC licenses don't fit Debian's definition of freedom for example.

When I read the FAL I found it confusing. In particular, I couldn't
understand the conditions under which I am allowed to modify the work
(section 2.3). It was obscure to me.

Well maybe this is one of the reasons for a revision. :-) But my understanding was that the FAL was of largely historical interest at this point.

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page