Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 18 November 2005 05:06 am, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > The "Invariant Sections" - how do these affect the remix culture?
>
> Yes, I just remembered those. Invariant sections seems closer to BY-ND
> than BY-SA. It looks like the GFDL is like having a work with portions
> that are BY-SA and portions that are BY-ND.
>
> Here's an idea for making them compatible:
>
> * BY-SA works can be relicensed as GFDL with no invariant sections.
> * BY-ND works can be relicensed as GFDL as one big invariant section.
> * GFDL work can be relicensed as BY-SA if they have no inv. section.
> * GFDL work can be relicensed as BY-ND if they have any inv. section.
> * GFDL work can be relicensed where the inv. section is BY-ND and the
> rest is BY-SA.
>
> One concern:
> Would it be possible to take a BY-SA work, make it GFDL, add an
> invariant section, and then make it BY-ND? It looks like it. 


> The GFDL 
> could open a path for removing the ShareAlike clause from a work. We
> must not allow that.

Seperated for emphasis...

Exactly. I choose BY-SA becuase it is the closest thing that CC has that 
matches with my copyleft bent.

I am certainly not interested in allowing someone to remove the SAness of my 
stuff by any means at all. (Well, on a case by case basis, I may let their 
money have a conversation with my bank account about the removal of SA.)

One of the beauties of an SA remix culture is that even this temptation could 
be removed from me in a large number of cases.

>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.

all the best,

drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/85937
BY-SA noveling at nano 2005 stored at ourmedia.
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22