Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

email AT greglondon.com wrote:
> your draft 2 sharealike license is no different than
> the CC-Public Domain license. If derived works can
> have further restrictions added to it, then the original
> work is effectively CC-PublicDomain.

False.  You can do anything with PD work.  My understanding of the 
proposed draft is that a offering a 2.0 SA license is the same as 
offering a work under multiple 1.0 SA licenses, e.g., 2.0 BY-SA is 
roughly equivalent to offering licensors a choice of 1.0 BY-SA or 1.0 
BY-SA-NC.

> what 'camp' are you trying to satisfy?

I think the goal in offering a more flexible SA is to increase the pool 
from which a derived work can pull from.  We aren't naively pursuing 
only that goal, or we'd offer nothing but a PD dedication.  _Personally_ 
I'm more comfortable with a SA that that preserves freedoms rather than 
restrictions, but my sympathies tend towards the libre software world, 
so that's expected.  I suspect most creatives don't harbor such 
sympathies, and as such it may be worth offering a SA with a slightly 
different nature.  IMHO, FWIW, IANAL, etc.

> I just released a perl programming manual 
> (120 pages, several months of work)
> under CC-BY-SA, and I would change the 
> license if you changed the ShareAlike 
> license to what you are proposing.
> or force it to be version 1.0 only.

I like how you introduce Data::Dumper immediately after hello world. :-)

--
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21