Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

Ricardo Gladwell said:
> I appreciate that you dislike the Transparency option, but how do you
> feel about a "source" requirement: that a modifiable version of the
> content always be provided? So, for example, you cannot distribute a PDF
> without  providing the "source" document, i.e. the word processor or
> PageMaker file you used to generate the PDF? Note, this source
> requirement makes no mention of open or closed formats.

Well, just remember that not all open software is under a
license like GNU-GPL. Some of it is available under the BSD license
and similar licenses which basically say "this work is effectively
the same as public domain".

And I think that such software makes a huge contribution to
open projects even though there are no ShareAlike requirements,
no source code requirements, no prohibitions against using DRM,
no restrictions to prohibit using software patents.

So, while I see the value in requiring the "source" document
in all derivatives, I don't know that the gift economy you
are trying to create would collapse if someone did that.
If the stuff you want to create has an audience, then I think
CC-ShareAlike is probably enough to give your works to that
audience and turn them into authors and contributers.