Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Chris Croome <chris AT croome.net>]

Hi

Thanks for the reply, I feared that the CC share alike license might
not be GPL-compatible :-(

Perhaps Creative Commons might what to consider what changes would
be required to be made to make the share alike license
GPL-compatible since it's aim does seem to be the creation of
copyleft material? 

Dual licensing material with a GPL-compatible license like the
Design Science or Free Art ones [2] might be good interim measure --
it's something I'm considering. 

Chris

[2] http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses

On Tue 14-Jan-2003 at 11:49:44AM -0500, Dave Turner via RT wrote:
> 
> The Share Alike license isn't GPL-compatible, because it requires
> derivative works to be distributed under its exact terms, and its
> exact terms aren't the GPL.  For instance, they include:
> 
> >> You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
> publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
> measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner
> inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. <<
> 
> I'm not actually sure that that provision is consistent with it
> being a Free Software license.
> 
> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 17:56, Chris Croome via RT wrote:
> > 
> > I'd be interested to know (and I'm sure others would too) if the
> > Creative Commons Share Alike License [1] is considered to be GPL
> > compatible in the way that the Design Science and Free Art
> > licenses are? 
> > 
> > If there is a FSF position it would be great if you added the
> > information to this page:
> > 
> >   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> > 
> > [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0

-- 
http://chris.croome.net/#blog