Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Hi Evan,

Evan Prodromou wrote:
> First, I think that any expectations that the GFDL will be modified to 
> allow derivatives of GFDL works to be licensed under by-sa are probably 
> misguided...
>
> Second, I think that one-way compatibility is a good idea...

But how do you feel about the Invariant Sections issue? You release a 
work under the BY-SA, someone relicenses it under the GFDL and adds the 
'xyz Manifesto' in front as an Invariant Section.

Wouldn't such use be counter to the goals of BY-SA?
How would BY-SA users feel if they saw this happen to their work?
Wouldn't this be unfair to BY-SA users?

I like the idea of compatibility. Even one-way compatibility. But I have 
serious concerns over the invariant sections issue. I don't want my work 
to be made more closed when I intended it to be open.


> Thirdly, I don't think there's much point in having a referendum on the 
> quality of the GFDL. It is in effect just about equivalent to the 
> Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 and above, with the differences being how 
> many and which extraneous bytes each license requires distributors to 
> include.

What about Invariant Sections? BY-SA 1.0 didn't have that.

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.