[cc-licenses] Discussion Draft - Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons

j lipszyc jl at creativecommons.pl
Thu Nov 17 22:03:40 EST 2005

Daniel Carrera wrote:

> I 
> think that the long-term solution is to make the two mutually 
> compatible.

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 
further. But:

> 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 
about it.

> 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.

Jaroslaw Lipszyc

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list