Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Tsiavos,P" <P.Tsiavos AT lse.ac.uk>]

Just to add a few comments on the new SA clause from a CCEW perspective.

The problem of compatibility between CC and free/open content licences is one 
we have faced last year in the UK in the case of the BBC-CA licence that is 
pretty much the same as the CCEW licence but not exactly the same. The 
difference between “pretty much the same” and “the same” makes a difference 
in quite a few cases and the BBC-CA is not an exception :-)

We thought of using a provision similar to the one that Mia suggests but 
after extensive discussions in the CC-UK list as well as with the BBC legal 
team and Christiane, we decided to opt out. The reasons (that I think are 
applicable in the case of an GFDL interoperability clause) may be summarised 
as follows:

-       the two licences have some terms and conditions which are not in 
common. As a result when I licence my work under a CC-BY-SA licence that 
allows the derivative works to be licensed under a GDFL licence as well, the 
following problems arise:
(a)     the interoperation with the GDFL has to be somehow expressed in the 
commons deed so that the user of the CC-BY-SA licence makes and informed 
decision
(b)     the terms of the GDFL also have to be expressed somehow for the same 
reason
(c)     Explicating the terms of the GDFL is not necessarily going to be an 
easy task. GDFL is a complex document (as it has already mentioned in the 
list) and has no commons deed equivalent. Are the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence users 
making an equally well informed decision as e.g. the CC-BY-SA 2.5? I am not 
sure this is the case…
(d)     the user of a CC-BY-SA licence is effectively forced to license her 
derivative from the original works under a GDFL licence (see next point), 
without being given a choice.
(e)     the derivative work is effectively licensed under the terms of the 
most restrictive licence. If the author of the derivative work decides to go 
for the GDFL option, there is nothing the original work licensor could do to 
stop her. The case with the invariant sections (or the commercial uses in the 
case of CC-BY-NC-SA) Rob mentions is illustrative of the problem. Hence the 
CC-SA clause is diluted into a GDFL-SA licence. 
-       there is a good reason why there is a number of different Free/ open 
content licences out there: people have different needs. Even when we 
approach different communities (e.g. medical doctors or new media artists) 
they are considering different options for licensing their works and the CC 
licences are not always the most appropriate for them. What are we trying to 
achieve with a homogenization of the licences? An one size fits all approach 
may not be what we need here. If the objective is to simplify things perhaps 
we should be working on creating CC modules that would encourage solutions 
similar to the commons deed in other communities rather than trying to make 
all licences fully interoperable. A Creative Labelling kind of project could 
be a possible solution? 
-       We have negotiated extensively with the BBC in order to bring the two 
licences as close as possible but differences always emerge. Unless GDFL 
becomes substantially and fully compatible with (at least some) CC licences, 
the discussion concerning the SA element will always bring problems. As 
people have already indicated in this list, this should be a condition for a 
SA clause in the form we see it in the v3.0 licences.

Sorry for the awfully long email:-)

I am eager to read your comments!

Best,
prodromos