Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>]

>>>>> "ML" == Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org> writes:

    ML> Thanks to Evan for following up on debian-legal, though the
    ML> responses don't shed much light.  Same for his post and
    ML> followups on OSI's licenses-discuss.

Thanks back. I hope I'm not being too meddlesome, but I find this a
very interesting topic.

    ML> It would be very nice if by and by-sa were certified as free,
    ML> open, or whatever by Debian, OSI, and the FSF.  There
    ML> certainly isn't any objection from CC to by and by-sa being so
    ML> certified.  That said, we haven't made any postivie effort in
    ML> that direction.

That would be pretty cool. I think there's a great opportunity there
for both Creative Commons and the FLOSS community, and I'd love to
help out with this.

That said, there seems like there would need to be _some_ positive
effort on the part of Creative Commons. Here's the two things I see:

1. OSI approval requires a practicing lawyer to submit the license,
   with commentary, to the OSI board. See here for details:

      http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval

   I'm pretty willing to help out with getting an OSI approval, but
   I'm not willing enough to hire a lawyer to do that. B-) I also
   think such a submission should probably come from Creative Commons
   rather than some schmoe like me.

2. There may be some fine points that can't be resolved without
   amending the CC licenses. I realize that the 2.0 licenses were just
   released, but would minor changes to licenses be possible? Say, a
   2.1 version, with some clarifications for OSI/DFSG approval?

Anyways, those are my thoughts.

~ESP

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