Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

j lipszyc wrote:
> What is that issue? If this is fundamental those licenses will be never 
> compatible. Am i missing something?

I don't understand the GFDL, so I want to be careful not to say 
something that's wrong. But based on these pages:

http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00169.html
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html

It looks like:
* The GFDL allows "invariant" sections. That's like having a work where 
some bits are "non-derivs" and the rest is "sharealike".
* The GFDL prohobits "technical measures" that inhibit sharing. Debian 
sees this as too broad.
* The GFDL says you must include a "machine readable transparent copy" 
of the work. So, I can't just give you a paper print-out (not machine 
readale) or a PDF or PNG (not transparent - can't edit).

HHmm... it looks like making BY-SA and GFDL compatible is not as easy as 
I thought. Thank you for bringing this up! Thank you for getting me to 
dig deeper into this.

We can still try to make these compatible, but it may be harder. For 
example, we might say "you can make this work GFDL, but you can't use 
any invariant sections". Just an idea.

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.