Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Todd A. Jacobs wrote:

> The invariant sections are optional, so you could simply require
> documents to contain no invariant sections.

And that would be free. But it would no longer be the FDL  :-)

But in any event, I don't understand why we're talking about the FDL to 
begin with. The FDL is a nice license, but it's not one under 
consideration for me for reasons that have nothing to do with Debian.

> Maybe your best bet is just to use a modified CC-BY, and simply call it 
> something else.

I don't like making new licenses. I don't want to add to the license 
pollution. Also, one of the good things of the CC-BY is that it can be 
combined with all the existing CC work. If I made a license that was 
almost like the CC-BY, but not quite the same, I would lose that 
combinability.

Therefore, I think I'll go for a dual licensing system. Please see my 
other post. Tell me what you think. I'm planning on a dual GPL / CC-BY 
strategy. My other post also lists my reasons.

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