Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>]

>>>>> "NP" == Nelson Pavlosky <npavlos1 AT swarthmore.edu> writes:

    NP> I vaguely remember at some point in the past somebody said
    NP> that in the CC 2.0 licenses it would be possible to mix
    NP> Share-alike content under different licenses by using the most
    NP> restrictive license of the lot?  Is this true?

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't speak for
Creative Commons.

It was true for the 2.0 draft versions. I don't know if it will be in
the final versions or not. The impression I got from discussion on
this list is that remixable works are more important than anything,
and one upstream author's ideas about preserving restrictions are more
important than another author's ideas about preserving freedoms.

    NP> If so, if I want to release my work under a ShareAlike license
    NP> but I don't want more restricted work being created from mine,
    NP> is there any way I can stop it?

It's dubious. I have no idea if this or any of the other issues that
came up during the public review period have changed anyone's
mind.

    NP> Saying "you could still use the 1.0 license" isn't
    NP> satisfactory because it would create unnecessary confusion if
    NP> the rest of the world moves on to 2.0, which it presumably
    NP> would if that's the default on the "choose license" page.

Well, there are plenty of folks who won't be moving to the 2.0
licenses if the ShareAlike provisions are seriously changed. But, yes,
it'd be great if CC dealt with this in some positive way.

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide