Development of Creative Commons licenses

[melanie dulong de rosnay <melanie.dulong-de-rosnay AT cersa.org>]

Dear all,

I agree it is an important step, other free licenses such as the Free Art
License could be added in the proposed clause.
Up to the community to study CC BY SA restrictions and compatibility issues
regarding FSF freedoms shared by GFDL, FAL and other free licenses.
Setting up a wiki seems the best idea to discuss these issues.

Best,
Melanie


Le 18/11/05 7:47, « paul keller » <paul AT waag.org> a écrit :

> dear mia et all,
> 
> i agree with the other reactions on this list that including the
> possibility of relicensing under GFDL is an extremely important step
> for creative commons. i do not have to add too much to the discussion
> about the new possibility to relicense under GFDL. i do however have
> a few remarks concerning the other three relicensing provisions and
> how they affect compatibility:
> 
> the proposed license provision reads:
> 
>> You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
>> digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of: (i)
>> this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same
>> License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons iCommons
>> license that contains the same License Elements as this License
>> (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)
> 
> assuming this is the text of the US/generic license it is fine as it
> allows relicensing under the US/generic version and the localized
> iCommons versions of the same license. if this gets literally
> translated into a icommons license it will not allow for sharing
> works obtained under that license under the terms of the generic/US
> version. this can be solved in the translation process by changing
> the license text but i think this is not really desirable.
> 
> the best solution would probably to end differentiating between the
> US/generic version and iCommons licenses. (the language does need to
> be changed anyway given the recent repurposing of the 'icommons'
> label). i guess it makes more sense to call all licenses creative
> commons licenses. and change the above quote to the following:
> 
>> You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
>> digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of: (i)
>> this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same
>> License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons ported
>> to another Jurisdiction license that contains the same License
>> Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)
> 
> all the best from bangalore,
> paul keller