Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

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.