[cc-community] Towards a Stronger Copyleft for BY-SA 4.X+

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Dec 20 13:12:27 EST 2011

On Tuesday 20 December 2011 12:57:17 Paul Houle wrote:
>   On 12/19/2011 7:24 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
> > Hopefully this might get the ball rolling on discussions around a
> > stronger copyleft of BY-SA in future versions.
>         My take is that any change is bad,  whatever the change is.
>         Every day I hear from people who seem to have a hard time
> understanding Creative Commons as it is -- this is just restricted to
> "CC-BY",  "CC-BY-SA" and "CC-BY-ND".  ("NC" is a morass,  since I also
> meet sanctimonious souls who think it's OK for an academic institution
> that ruins peoples live with $60,000 debt to use content but not a site
> supported by advertising that offers free images to students and
> teachers worldwide at all academic levels.)
>         The concern I've got is that people are going to have a hard
> time understanding different versions of creative commons licenses.
> CC-BY-SA/3.0 means one thing,  and CC-BY-SA/4.0 means something very
> different.  My experience with things like that is you can explain the
> difference to somebody and then they'll come right back to you two hours
> later and be all confused about it and you've got to roll the rock back
> up the hill.
>         When people have to deal with things like that,  they shut
> down.  Rather than choosing a CC license,  they'll just leave their
> photos "all rights reserved".  Instead of using CC photos,  they'll buy
> them from Shutterstock.
>         Wikipedia successfully changed it's license,  but license
> changes have been destructive to other communities -- I particularly
> look at drop in contributions to Open Street Maps as a result of the
> ongoing arguments about license changes.  The more talk there is about
> licenses,  the more creative people are going to be creative someplace
> else.

Tell me about it. I shut down a lot of times myself. It is too much. This is 
one of the best arguments I know of for the abolition of copyright law 
totally. The people that it is supposedly most for are also the people who 
mostly can't or can't be bothered to figure it all out.
> ----
>         Now,  the argument that "SA" is too weak is a good one.
> Really,  SA doesn't mean much at all for photos.  If I modify the
> image,  I have to let people use the modified image under "SA" terms,
> but that's a very small inconvenience for having the benefit of using
> the images to illustrate a book.  If you said that the collections
> clause for images in CC-BY-SA was a mistake,  I'd say that's a very
> reasonable opinion.
>         If we do want to have a stronger license,  I suggest that we
> give it a new name,  like
> CC-BY-CL/4.0

OK by me so long as current and earlier BY-SA works can be pulled into new 
works with that license. That may be the rub though.

What does CL stand for here?
>         to do otherwise would be like "Java 8" coming out and being a
> dynamically typed language with multiple inheritance.

all the best,


More information about the cc-community mailing list