Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>:

> drew Roberts wrote:
>> The "Invariant Sections" - how do these affect the remix culture?
>
> Yes, I just remembered those. Invariant sections seems closer to BY-ND
> than BY-SA. It looks like the GFDL is like having a work with portions
> that are BY-SA and portions that are BY-ND.

Basically, if you publish a work SA I can then produce an FDL work including
your work with invariant sections that misrepresent and otherwise abuse it. I
can change your work to fit in with my work, making a seamless whole.

You then cannot do the same to my work because it is in invariant sections.

Now you can obviously abuse my work under SA. But I can change it back, keep
anyactual improvements or constructive additions you make, and modify your 
work
to either refute or do the same to you as you have to me.

Under plain SA without FDL-relicensing nonsense you can still aggregate the SA
work with ND grimness and alter the SA work to fit. But you cannot make and
distribute a new single work this way.

If I FDL-ed my work I could put my own invariants in to pre-empt this. So this
move makes BY-SA effectively redundant in favour of a licence that doesn't 
have
the same effect or intentions.

It doesn't take a wiki to show that this is a bad idea.

- Rob.