Development of Creative Commons licenses

[mp <mp AT fsc.cc>]

FYI: a discussion from AktiviX-discuss referring to:
https://wiki.aktivix.org/AktiviX:Copyrights and a debate about licenses.

Includes a comment about CC.

This discussion was connected to this list as:
                          Subject: 
Re: License for group of authors on
a blog

-----Forwarded Message-----
> From: MJ Ray <mjr AT dsl.pipex.com>
> To: Chris <chris AT aktivix.org>
> Cc: AktiviX Discussion List <aktivix-discuss AT lists.aktivix.org>
> Subject: [AktiviX-discuss] Re: GPL for the AktiviX wiki?
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:25:37 +0100
> 
> On 2004-07-19 11:40:44 +0100 Chris <chris AT aktivix.org> wrote:
> 
> > My question is -- is the GPL suitable for a site where
> > most of the content is not software?
> 
> I think you mean "not programs" rather than "not software". Clearly, 
> the AktiviX wiki content is not hardware, firmware or wetware!
> 
> At the moment, some debian developers (including me) recommend using 
> the GPL (but think that you should state clearly which form is "the 
> preferred form for modification" or "Source" if it's at all 
> questionable) if you want a copyleft or the MIT/X11-style licence if 
> you don't want a copyleft. Many debian publications, including the 
> Developers Reference, are released under the GPL 
> http://www.uk.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/
> 
> The FDL has few fundamental problems, mostly relating to tethering 
> free software (the main document) to non-free software (the secondary 
> sections), but there are a few odd wording problems which I hope will 
> be ironed out in the next version. 
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
> 
> The CC licences have a common problem in requiring you to delete all 
> appearances of the name of an author if they request it. In most 
> cases, that's not going to be a bug problem, but the potential is 
> there for some icky messes. Also, there's a practical problem with 
> most authors including the CC trademark terms as part of licences, 
> because of a presentational error that CC seem unwilling to fix. If 
> included, the trademark terms are an obvious problem.
> 
> So, you have those two licences, neither of which are free software 
> licences, while there are free software licences which can cover 
> writing.
> 
> My question is -- are the FDL and CC licences suitable for a site 
> where most of the content is about free software?