Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting 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?

This is a new module.

> > 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.

We are discussing an addition to SA. But there are two SA licenses, BY-SA and
BY-NC-SA. NC-SA is SA with the additional restriction that licensed 
work cannot
be used commercially.

So NC-SA would include this new SA module, with its FDL-relicensing 
requirement.
Only it couldn't because that would allow NC work to be relicensed 
commercially
under the FDL.

This FDL-relicensing clause is therefore not simply an addition to SA, as it
cannot be included in NC-SA.

I am not saying anyone has suggested an NC (although the article Mia linked to
was about NC not SA), I am saying that contrasting this proposed BY-SA 
with the
equivalent BY-NC-SA licence reveals a problem.

> > 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.

But what about the argument that it is based on?

> 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 have identified a flaw with the proposal that is based on its fundamentals.

> > I am not a lawyer,
>
> Yet you're positive that there is nothing that can be done to change the
> status quo.

Start campaigning to deprecate FDL in favor of BY-SA for non-computer manual
documentation.

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

The FSF will not remove invariant sections because of Stallman's belief 
that for
example the GPL text or a statement on teh aims of Free Software should be ND.

Making SA work relicensable only in FDL work that has no invariant 
sections, and
insisting that the attribution URL be included as part of the FDL work would
help, but only for the first generation of relicensed work. So one trivial
derivative is all it would take to strip this requirement.

- Rob.