Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> Basically this is a new module. Let's call it CC-CO, for co-operation.

What?

> The reason it is a new module is that it isn't part of SA. Why isn't it 
> part of SA? Because it cannot be part of CC-BY-NC-SA. The FDL clashes with the
> NonCommercial clause because the FDL can be used commercially.

And where did you get the NC from? No one has suggested an NC.

> But any claim that a BY-SA with FDL relicensing has only the same
> modules as a 2.0 BY-SA is plainly false,

I disagree with that blanket statement. We hardly even begun discussing 
alternatives. You've decided that whatever we come up with must be bad 
without having to look at what we come up with?

> I am not a lawyer,

Yet you're positive that there is nothing that can be done to change the 
status quo.

I have suggested two things that might work. Other people, cleverer than 
I and more knowledgeable might come up with something better.

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.