Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

rob AT robmyers.org wrote:

> 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.

Ah. I see now.

Any modification to the SA module must be consistent in all licenses 
with an SA on it. The proposed change is incompatible with NC, and that 
would present a problem with one license with an SA module.

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

That wasn't clear to me from your previous email.

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

I'm already campaigning to deprecate FDL by BY-SA for *everything* :-)

http://oooauthors.org

This is a project I founded for making a manual for OOo. We don't use 
FDL, we use BY (yes, plain attribution).

http://opendocumentfellowship.org

This is another project I founed. This isn't a manual btw. Everything 
here is BY-SA.

> 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.

I see.

It might be easier to make BY-ND compatible with GFDL :-)
(btw, I hate the ND module).


I have a question. Is the BY module compatible with the GFDL? Can I take 
a BY work and relicense it under the GFDL?

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.