Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Takemoto" <timtak AT nihonbunka.com>]

Dear Daniel Carrera

Thank you very much for your immediate response. I was just in the process 
of writing a correction to my last post, and your post came just in time to 
clarify the changes required.

> The license text defines exactly what "share alike" means. In brief, it 
> means that you have to use the *same* license (notice for the pedantic: 
> yes, I know that's a simplification).

This specifies same licence, but not the same place/mode of sharing. That 
it is clear. But when one says "the same licence" if the original work is 
using 
the online licence, does the derivative work have to use the same **online
licence**? "Online" is all that is required. 

*At the present time*, the licence does not stipulate the *medium*
of the licence. Derivative works must use a licence with the same 
"terms."

This brings me to the correction to my last post. In my last post I suggested 
that derivative works need be shared at the same URL. For the reasons 
you point out this is ridiculously restrictive. I stand corrected (thank 
you). 

So

"Share HERE alike" need not mean "Share at the same URL alike"
there is no need for that restriction. The meaning of "HERE" can be 
much wider:

"Share on the Internet Alike" 

If the original work contains an attribution and a URL, then "Share on the 
net alike" means "share here alike" because there is no distance on the Net. 

Subsequent users are still only one click away from the source of creativity. 
Hence, by insisting on "on the Internet," the all important creative community
network remains cohesive. 

Now...Returning to the licence. The licence at the present time is generous
in that it stipulate "the same terms." In order to give the "Share Alike" 
licence
the same positive potential as the GNU, all that would be required is 
to insist upon THE SAME licence. By "the same", I do not mean a copy.
I mean the exact same one. This can be achieved only if the derivative 
work is on the net. In other words, the licence need only stipulate the
EXACT SAME licence. This is easy to achieve if the that the derivative 
work links to the "Share Alike" licence. 

In that case, the creative network would not be broken. 

So, perhaps, the only tweak required is that the "Share alike licence"
insist upon a link to that licence. 

Regarding your other points,

> > might work. By that I mean that all all derivative works must be
> > shared at the site from where they were downloaded.
> 
> Your premise is flawed in that the GPL does not have any similar 
> requirement.

You are right. The GPL (?) / GNU licence does not require that 
derivative works are shared at the same site. But in the case of software,
it will be shared at a site somewhere. And if the software contains the
URL of the source, then subsequent users are only one click away
from that source. Hence it is almost the same as being at the site 
where they were downloaded. 

> The attribution was not changed in the way you suggested above.
As far as I am aware, earlier versions of the attribution licence only 
mentioned the use of a name, not the inclusion of a link. 

By the way, I welcome other suggestions for making CC licences work
in the text domain. These licences will work one day. 

Thank you very much, Daniel, for contributing to evolution of CC 
licences. You will be attributed.  

Cheers, 

Timothy