Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Does CC-SA require a modifiable copy?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Does CC-SA require a modifiable copy?
  • Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:30:18 +0000

On 6 Dec 2004, at 19:57, Greg London wrote:

Given the CC 2.0 licenses are cooked, it might be interesting
to work "Source Availability" into the licensing scheme as a
"Bolt-on". i.e. this work is licensed CC-SA-SRC
Though I can't think of any other CC license it would make
sense to bolt-on to...

The 3.0 licenses have been mentioned whenever the Integrity right/module comes up on cc-uk. I get the impression we won't have to wait fifteen years to hit 3.0 .

I do recommend that people start reading up on Integrity and thinking about how it might affect projects now. IP shills have nothing on Moral Rights shills. :-)

I just haven't seen a CC project that was big enough to require
source, prohibit patents, etc, etc, that are the sort of overly
restrictive license options needed for a big, massive, long-term
project to survive.

I finally put my finger on what is wrong with this argument. We do have just such a project: it's called "culture". ;-)

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page