Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Sharealike license element change and by-nc-sa

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Sharealike license element change and by-nc-sa
  • Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:27:39 +0000

On 18 Nov 2005, at 18:14, Mia Garlick wrote:

As you can see from the original proposal, the plan
initially was that the amendment would apply to all ShareAlike
provisions in the CC licenses. However, that may not be possible for
some of the reasons that have been aired on the list to date. We
welcome people's views on whether this is possible or whether it
should be limited to just the BY-SA license (if it happens at all).

This sounds like the original intention was that CC-BY-NC-SA work was going to be included in this proposal. Which would be even more of a break than for BY-SA 2.0, and NC has a much larger audience than SA. Including a number of record labels, who would not be happy with their NC work being commercialised via the FDL.

People should also consider making suggestions for how any such
change (if effected) gets incorporated into the Commons Deed.
Creative Commons is not looking to create "back doors" to trip people
up but - as the title of the posting suggests - ensuring that we have
an interoperable commons.

I understand CC's intentions and I agree wholeheartedly with the aim of defragmenting the commons. There should definitely be a conversation around this.

But the fact is that modifying SA (or any other CC license) to allow work to be taken out from under it and placed under another licence, without that license allowing reciprocal relicensing, *will* create a one-way door in the CC license. It goes against the whole CC "manage your rights" thing.

And even if both licenses are made relicense-compatible, properties may be stripped between relicensing, particularly with licenses as different as SA and FDL.

Unifying FDL and BY-SA should not be done suddenly and unilaterally, rather it should be an aim, if at all, for CC 4.0 and FDL 2. But they are such different licenses.

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page