Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Fwd: Re: Discussion Draft - Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob AT robmyers.org
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Fwd: Re: Discussion Draft - Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons
  • Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:26:18 +0000

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.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page