Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Wouter Vanden Hove <wouter.vanden.hove AT pandora.be>]

Op vr 06-02-2004, om 20:20 schreef email AT greglondon.com:

> Copyleft (Sharealike) only makes sense if the old license has to be
> applied to the new work.

Yes, 
Imagine the GPL had a clause like the new SA, that could forbid
commercial use or derived works.

Apply that to IBM, HP, Suse, Lindows making use of GNU/Linux.
What do you think would happen.
So what's the whole point of copyleft then?

There is a problem with license compatibility
like eg. Wikipedia that uses FDL and Wikitravel that use BY-SA,


I don't know *any* project that is complaining about license
incompatibility between BY-SA and BY-SA-NC.

And I do have some knowlegde about what open content projects are out
hter:
http://www.opencursus.be/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&l_op=viewlink&cid=8

I was expecting that CC would try to resolve the conflict between their
own strong copyleft license and various other strong copyleft licenses
like the Open Publication License (with no options), FDL (with no
invariant sections), Design Science License, Free Art License, ...

So I wasn't expecting this.
If you want to merge SA and NC-SA content, you have a strong incentive
to make the NC drop, and make the work more *open*.
With the new clause, everybody can make an open work more *closed*.
I think this is 100% the opposite of the the whole Creative Commons
Project wants to achieve.


The dynamics of strong copylefting is extraordinaire. 
A clause like this just blows the whole thing up.


BY-SA=!BY-PD
Wouter Vanden Hove
www.opencursus.org
www.vrijschrift.org
www.open-education.org







> 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.




> 
> Greg
> 
> p.s. you can get the manual at
> www.greglondon.com
> just follow the links
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:56:53 -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > I wonder if it would be possible to satisfy both camps by perhaps
> > splitting the ShareAlike license stipulation into two. ShareAlike
> > could be like 2.0 draft ShareAlike -- where you can add extra
> > stipulations. ShareExact would be like 1.0 ShareAlike -- no extra
> > stipulations, but new versions or iCommons with the same stipulations
> > allowed.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> 
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend