Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>]

Rob Myers wrote:

>On 27 Nov 2005, at 22:43, wiki_tomos wrote:

>FDL relicensing cannot be part of the BY module as it cannot be part  
>of BY-SA-NC. The FDL allows commercial use, which would break the  
>intent of NC and make the FDL incompatible with NC.
>
>> Creating a derivative of 2.0'd Work and releasing it
>> under FDL is not something 2.0 permits to a licensee.
>>
>> Creating a derivative of 2.0'd Work and releasing it
>> under yet-to-be-published 3.0 is something 2.0 permits
>> to a licensee.
>>
>> Creating a derivative of that particular 3.0'd derivative
>> and releasing it under whichever license that is okayed
>> in 3.0, is something 2.0 permits to a licensee.
>
>Ah yes I see your point. Do the derivative author's rights shadow the  
>upstream authors' rights?
>
I am not sure what you mean by one's rights "shadow" other's 
(perhaps because I'm not an expert), but author's rights, 
in licenses like GFDL, CCPL 2.0, etc. are not strictly defined. 
Through the scheme of "or later version of this license" type of 
clause, a part of the license grant is formally and explicitly up to 
further definition in the future. Introduction of 3.0 will 
define a part of what 2.0 authors/licensors grants to second 
generation derivative creators (someone who creates a derivative of 
a derivative of the 2.0'd Work). 

I am not sure, of course, to what extent this future definition 
can be different from the existing definition. Suppose Creative 
Commons as a non-profit organization is somehow legally 
taken over by an evil corporation. Could the Creative Commons 
introduce a CC-BY-SA 5.0 in which a derivative work of 5.0 
could be used with DRM? What if 5.0 says "derivative work 
can be used in any way by Entertainment Association of America"? 
Can Creative Commons be crossing some legal line by doing that? 
Does Creative Commons have an implicit contract-like relation 
with CC-BY-SA 2.0 authors/licensors and that obligates CC to 
define further license grants in later versions of the license 
that is in line with the spirit of the 2.0? I don't know. 

But making CC-BY-SA and GFDL compatible do seem 
like something well within the boundary of what's acceptable. 

So may I be hopeful to win your support for CC-BY-SA - GFDL 
compatibility?

Tomos