Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

On 15 Nov 2005, at 20:53, Daniel Carrera wrote:

> Assuming that BY-SA and FAL are very similar, it would be good to be
> able to take BY-SA work and make it FAL and take FAL work and make  
> it BY-SA.

If an individual wants their work licensed BY-SA as well as FAL they  
are free to do so. If two licences are different enough not to be the  
same licence, then those differences are presumably important and may  
matter to someone who has licensed their work under the other licence.

We've been here before with the aggregate relicensing clause in the  
2.0 drafts and the backdoor for the Creative Archive licence in the  
UK-BY-SA-NC drafts. I don't think fitting back doors for minor  
licences into CC licences is a good idea at all.

> I don't understand how those two items relate to freedom. You find the
> CC licenses confusing and are concerned about the national  
> adaptations.
> Those are more of practical considerations than an issue of freedom.

Everybody and their aunt has a definition of "freedom". :-) The CC  
licenses don't fit Debian's definition of freedom for example.

> When I read the FAL I found it confusing. In particular, I couldn't
> understand the conditions under which I am allowed to modify the work
> (section 2.3). It was obscure to me.

Well maybe this is one of the reasons for a revision. :-) But my  
understanding was that the FAL was of largely historical interest at  
this point.

- Rob.