Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Antoine wrote:

> But from this PDF I can re-create *another* OpenDocument file that will
> be just like the original. The license allows me to do so. That's what
> matters here.

This is questionable. OpenDocument files can contain macros, Xforms, 
embedded video, slide transitions and other things that just don't exist 
in PDF.

You can create *an* OpenDocument file, of course. But it's like creating 
a WAV file from the MP3.

> But that does *not* give you the right to claim an existing WAV file is
> also CC-licensed, when it actually isn't.

Well, that's the question we're trying to answer here :-)

> Remember our discussion about the FAL: in the digital world, everything
> is a copy. If I'm the author of a work, I can decide a specific copy is
> under the FAL (or the CC-by-sa, or whatever), but that the original
> isn't.

Let's not confuse the issue with talk of the "original". That doesn't 
exist in the digital world. You have two copies of a creative work. We 
want to figure out if you can CC-license one copy but not the other.

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.