Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Discussion Draft - Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Discussion Draft - Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons
  • Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:05:48 +0000

j lipszyc wrote:

If you ask me what is long-term solution, i would say that there are
only two working solution. First is to make BY-SA fully GFDL compatible
(and listed as such on FSF site). The second is to scrap it and use GFDL
instead (and i think this needs serious consideration).

I disagree. I rather like the BY-SA. I like it better than the GFDL. I think that the long-term solution is to make the two mutually compatible. If the BY-SA says you can relicense as GFDL and the GFDL says you can relicense as BY-SA, that would solve the incompatibility and still let me use my favourite license.


The more i like overall direction of this project, the more problems i
see. I understand, that CC BY-SA is GFDL incompatible because it adds some restrictions.

No.

* BY-SA says "you can make derivatives, but they must be BY-SA".
* GFDL says "you can make derivatives, but they must be GFDL".

Those two statements are mutually incompatible. Neither license allows you to use any other license other than itself. Except for this, the licenses are somewhat similar. The GFDL has a few requirements that have made some (e.g. Debian) decide it's not a truly free license. Okay, BY-SA also doesn't fit the Debian Free Software Guidelines. But talking to Debian made it clear that the issue with BY-SA is technical and likely to be fixed and the issue with GFDL is fundamental, and unlikely to be fixed.

if we promise something in common deeds we cannot than say "you know,
its just common deeds, you really should read fine print, its written
there that we can change the rules anytime".

The proposed change is in keeping with what's written on the commons deed. Of course the commons deed doesn't cover everything. That's why it's called "commons deed" and not "license".

Fine print says "a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License". There was no option to remove this parameter. Note, that removing this was possible in GPL ("or [at your option] any later version"), and as you know Linus Torvalds removed it from Linux kernel license, so kernel will never be licensed under GPL 3.

No, you're confused.

* The "at your option" is for the recipient, not the author.
* The author must say "at your option" explicitly.

Please read the GPL. Linus didn't remove anything. He failed to add something. There's a difference. The difference is that Linux is under the same license as other GPL projects, not some form of modified GPL. It just happens that other projects also give you their work under the unexistent GPL 3.



If this is not a cosmetical change we need is a serious public discussion on matter (and by "public" i understand not posting this on closed email list, or even more open cc-community, but setting up open wiki and linking it on Slashdot). We have to make people using our licenses aware of problem, our proposed solutions, and ensure transparent process of taking decision. Otherwise we will loose peoples trust.

I think that the cc-licenses list is precisely the right place for the discussion on modifying CC licenses. I think Slashdot is close to the worst place.


PLease note, that Mia posted this email to several different emailing lists, including _all_ iCommons. We have to decide where this talk will be continued, because starting several threads on different lists will make following it a real pain.

The talk continues on the designated list for changing CC licenses. To my knowledge, that would be this list.

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page