[cc-licenses] Discussion Draft - Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons
jl at creativecommons.pl
Thu Nov 17 22:03:40 EST 2005
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> think that the long-term solution is to make the two mutually
So basically we agree.
> Neither license allows
> you to use any other license other than itself. Except for this, the
> licenses are somewhat similar.
If so the rest of my email is baseless and should not be discussed
> But talking
> to Debian made it clear that the issue with BY-SA is technical and
> likely to be fixed and the issue with GFDL is fundamental, and unlikely
> to be fixed.
What is that issue? If this is fundamental those licenses will be never
compatible. Am i missing something?
> * The "at your option" is for the recipient, not the author.
> * The author must say "at your option" explicitly.
This how i understand this, maybe my english is not as good as i think
> I think that the cc-licenses list is precisely the right place for the
> discussion on modifying CC licenses. I think Slashdot is close to the
> worst place.
I said - "if it's not cosmetical", because i don't know. If there are no
major differences between GFDL and BY-SA this doesn't apply. And yes, i
deliberatly put Slashdot here in order to take it to extreme.
More information about the cc-licenses