Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] My feelings on GFDL compatibility

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] My feelings on GFDL compatibility
  • Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:06:02 +0000

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.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page