Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Rob Myers wrote:
> 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.

Not necessarily. Suppose I copy the BY-SA and change the name (and every 
instance of the name) to "Daniel's Open License" (DOL). This license 
would be incompatible with the BY-SA because the BY-SA requires 
derivatives to be under the BY-SA and DOL would require derivatives to 
be DOL. So you couldn't mix the two works even though their licenses are 
identical save only for the name.

So it is worth investigating exactly what the difference between FAL and 
BY-SA is.


> I don't think fitting back doors for minor  
> licences into CC licences is a good idea at all.

In general I agree with you. I just thought that the differences between 
FAL and BY-SA are worth investigating.

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

Debian is different. The incompatibility actually as something to do 
with rights and freedoms. Every license imposes some restriction, and 
you claim that restriction xyz is a requisite for freedom. Fine. I was 
pointing out that the concers Isabel expressed had nothing to do with 
any restrictions imposed by BY-SA.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
"It's like a rainbow. Without an observer at a 23 degree angle to
the light reflecting off a cloud of spherical droplets, there is no
rainbow. The whole universe is like that. Our spirits stand at a 23
degree angle to the universe. There is some new thing created at the
contact of photon and retina, some space between rock and mind."
 - Zoya Boone, Red Mars