Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Daniel Carrera <dcarrera AT math.umd.edu>]

Hello,

Thank you foryour help in understanding the CC-BY license. I think I've 
reached a decision I'm happy with. I will suggest to my team that we adopt 
a dual license strategy: GPL / CC-BY

This is the boilerplate I have in mind:

    This document is Copyright 2004 its contributors as defined in
    the section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the
    terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later
    (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or under the terms of
    the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later
    (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), at the option of
    any part receiving it.


Now, allow me to explain why I like this:

1) I get to keep the CC-BY, which I was very intent on. So the work can be 
used with the entire Creative Commons universe.

2) Having the GPL also allows it to enter the FOSS universe.

Though the GPL was designed with software in mind, the language does 
not specify that. The license uses the term "program", and section 0 
defines "program" to mean "this program or work". So it applies to works. 
:-)

3) This obviously meets Debian's desire for a "free" license, in the sense 
of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

4) There is some advantage to having software documentation under a 
license that is compatible with the software's license. For example, 
suppose that we later decide to use bits from the user guide to extend and 
expand the software Help.

5) The GPL doesn't really impose any inconveniences beyond the CC-BY. And 
heck, if I change my mind and decide it does, I've left the door open for 
a pure CC-BY approach.

I would love to hear comments. In particular, about the boiler plate 
above, and whether I did it right. The Debian-legal team helped me make 
it, so I expect it should be fine.

Cheers,
-- 
Daniel Carrera          | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today!  | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org   |