Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>]

Takemoto wrote:

> "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" 

That's better. But consider, you provide a resource on the internet. Why 
would you prohibit me from using it on a newsletter (paper) in my 
office? Or a presentation for school.

> 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. 

I don't understand your definition of "cohesive". There is nothing 
cohesive about the internet. Nor do I see the advantage in this restriction.

> 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.

There is no reason why forcing people to post their work on the internet 
will cause more creativity. Notice that the GPL does *not* make any such 
requirement.

Also, the license is called GPL, not GNU. GNU is a project (and an 
operating system) not a license.


> You are right. The GPL (?) / GNU licence does not require that 
> derivative works are shared at the same site.

Yes, it's called GPL. For General Public License. There is no such thing 
as "GNU license". GNU is a project comprised of many sub projects under 
different libraries. Most notably the GPL and LGPL for software and GFDL 
for documentation.

> But in the case of software,
> it will be shared at a site somewhere.

This is neither a requirement of the license, nor a universal fact. A 
lot of groups produce GPL software without having it dowloadable from a 
website (e.g. the source might be included on the CD they send you, or 
they might offer to send you the CD later for the cost of shipping).

> And if the software contains the URL of the source,

Not always.

> then subsequent users are only one click away
> from that source.

Not true, not always, and not by a licensing requirement.

> > 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. 

But not a requirement to put the derivative on the same website, or on 
any website at all.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
     /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
    /\/_/
   /\/_/  No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
   \/_/   However, a significant number of electrons were
   /      were severely inconvenienced.