Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

On 20 Nov 2005, at 19:36, Daniel Carrera wrote:

> Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > So, lastly, are invariants bad enough that we shouldn't make  
> > derivatives
> > of the by-sa relicensable under the GFDL? I'd say no, they are not.
> > They're noxious, but as the saying goes the Internet routes around
> > stupidity.
>
> Okay, I agree that this is the crux of the argument.

It's certainly an important question. Allowing people to use  
sharealike (copyleft) work without making their own work sharealike  
(by making it invariant) is just wrong.

Ethics aside, CC simply do not have the right to allow people's work  
to be relicensed under a non-CC license if those people have not  
given CC permission. Which is what will happen if this clause is  
added to a 2.6 or 3.0 that work placed under 2.0 or 2.5 can upgrade  
to (which would be any 2.6 or 3.0, because 2.0 and 2.5 say you can  
use any later version).

So FDL compatibility would have to be a CO module. Which is the same  
as dual-licensing apart from affective derivatives until they are  
given to the FDL.

- Rob.