Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Peter Brink said:
> drew Roberts skrev:
>>
>> So you think if I crafted a license where the original author granted  a
>> BY-SA
>> type license to make derivatives so long as the maker of derivatives did 
>> not
>> invoke their moral rights, but that if they should invoke their moral 
>> rights
>> anywhere, they would lose the rights the original author granted

> Remember - moral rights are mandatory. In Sweden a condition in a
> contract which violates a mandatory law or rule is by default considered
> being unlawful. Ergo - you would not be able to enforce such a condition
> in court. Designing a license knowing that it might be in part
> considered unlawful is a bad idea, not to mention that it would stain
> the reputation of CC.

Oh for cripes sake. Software patents, heinous as they are, are manadatory law.
The GNU-GPL licenses rights to its works as long as no one uses a
software patent to create a proprietary version of the work.
If someone secures a software patent, they do not have the right to
use GNU-GPL code to do so.

So, could you just once not talk about Moral Rights as if they
were the holy grail or some such thing?

What Drew is proposing is not that outlandish, and may even
be possible to accomplish within a simple license.

Whether or not CC does it is a different matter.
But continually spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt
towards anyone even thinking of licensing around
moral rights is just plain nonsense.

"stain reputation" my arse.