[cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Thu May 2 12:41:47 EDT 2013

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Kim Tucker <kctucker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Comparing the section "4. Restrictions" in SA 1.0 and BY-SA 3.0
> suggests areas for revision of CC SA 1.0:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/legalcode
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

I don't see much.  The DRM terminology has changed a bit.  But no one
really follows that anyway.  There was the addition of jurisdiction
licenses, but I believe the notion of jurisdiction licenses (which never
really accomplished anything useful) is being abandoned in 4.0 anyway.
 There are terms about compatible licenses and license elements, but this
is pretty much unused.

I really don't see anything of any real significance, relevant to SA 1.0,
which changed.  I admit I haven't given it a really close examination,

CC SA 1.0 certainly has some weaknesses now and updating it would be
> important if the Creative Commons were to bring it out of retirement.

This was my question.  What are the weaknesses?  What specifically needs to
be updated?

> The Libre Puro Licence is similar in the sense that it too does not
> require attribution and is also copyleft.

I guess you could call it copyleft if you trust whoever defines "the Libre
Knowledge Definition" to always properly define copyleft.

I don't.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20130502/a4e4613e/attachment.html 

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list