Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Friday 18 November 2005 04:09 am, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2005, at 03:35, drew Roberts wrote:
> > The "Invariant Sections" - how do these affect the remix culture?
>
> Basically unless I'm mistaken this revision would allow your BY-SA
> work to be made part of an invariant section and thus turned
> effectively into ND. Yes, yes, I know you'll say "but that would be
> additional terms on the work". Which work? The derivative work? But
> what if you are combining a BY-SA work with an FDL work with
> invariants? The derived work will have SA-breaking features.
>

Did you misread my concerns?

I am interested in promoting the remix culture, not killing it. That is why I 
raise the question of the invarient sections.

Invarient sections are not copyleft are they?

> So derived works may not use your work in invariant sections. And
> works derived from those may not either. But the FDL is the complete
> agreement. So you can't add that requirement.
>
> THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK.
>
> I'm sure the effect being aimed for is a GPL-style aggregation of
> compatibly licensed materials to avoid commons fragmentation. Which
> is cool, but that is not the effect that will be achieved.
>
> Please do not put any back doors into the CC licenses. If I want to
> FDL my work I will. As it is, licensing my work BY-SA 2.0 means that
> CC can FDL my work for me. We talked out a relicensing clause in 2.0
> and decided it was a bad idea. Which it was. And it is now.
>
> Basically this is bad enough to make me stop using CC-BY-SA if this
> clause is added.
>
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22