Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Greg London wrote:

> Evan Prodromou said:
>  
>
> > > > > > > "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?
> >    
> **the**
>
> > 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.
> >    
>
> ShareAlike should be exclusive. Incompatibility only arises when
> people use a GiftEconomy license like ShareAlike and then put
> MarketEconomy restrictions on the work like NonCommercial or EduOnly.
>  

There are license incompatibilities between all strong copyleft licenses.
Just try to create a text with a mix of GFDL (no invariant sections), 
CC-BY-SA, Open Publication License (no options), Free Art License,
and Design Science Licensed content. 

In spirit they are all the same, but also incompatible.
**** 
<http://www.opencursus.be/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=104>It's 
a good idea to be at least thinking about solving this problem.


Wouter Vanden Hove
www.opencursus.org
ww.vrijschrift.org