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: j lipszyc <jl AT creativecommons.pl>
  • 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 04:03:40 +0100

Daniel Carrera wrote:

I think that the long-term solution is to make the two mutually compatible.

So basically we agree.

> Neither license allows
> you to use any other license other than itself. Except for this, the
> licenses are somewhat similar.

If so the rest of my email is baseless and should not be discussed further. But:

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.

What is that issue? If this is fundamental those licenses will be never compatible. Am i missing something?

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

This how i understand this, maybe my english is not as good as i think about it.

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.

I said - "if it's not cosmetical", because i don't know. If there are no major differences between GFDL and BY-SA this doesn't apply. And yes, i deliberatly put Slashdot here in order to take it to extreme.

greetings
Jaroslaw Lipszyc




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page