Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 28 March 2005 10:02 pm, Greg London wrote:
> Drew,
>
> I'd have to say this license you're proposing is
> nigh indistinguishable from ShareAlike.
> The burden that comes with adding "YetAnotherLicense"
> needs be offset by sufficient differences between
> the new license and every other CC license.
>
> THis is more like cc-sa-2.0 and cc-sa-2.1
> as far as differences.
>
> The problem is that with the extra luggage of YAL,
> you end up with a copyleft license that won't
> qualify as "free". And that's two big points
> against it.
>
> The argument for it is to prevent someone from
> aggregating you SA work with non-SA work and
> selling the lot of it. But it doesn't solve
> the problem, it reduces it by 15%. (there are
> plenty of other ways your work could be sold
> by evil corporate powers that don't involve
> aggregations)
>
> So, you're looking at -2 against and .15 for
> and it's not looking good in my mind.

Can you explain the other ways? And if you see anyway to prevent them while 
maintaining the "spirit" of the license? I am open to being convinced that it 
was a foolish thought.

The fact that it looks a lot like CC BY-SA is because I like CC BY-SA and 
want 
something like it.

Look, I have tow things I am exploring.

1. Is it possible to write a license to do what I want without killing the 
good things I like about BY-SA?

2. Given that it is possible, does it make sense to do it?

Thanks again for your input.

all the best,

drew