Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <teloscorbin AT gmail.com>]

drew

> See this link:
> http://www.gnu.org/press/2002-03-19-Affero.html
> There can be new licenses that are copyleft.

Yes, and Phil's project isn't copyleft,
isn't Free, and isn't Sharing.

The AGPL is copyleft. Phil's project isn't.

The AGPL adds a restriction so that no one
can maintain an advantage over everyone else
by restricting access to the source code.
The AGPL requires that source code for
hosted software, software that wouldn't normally
invoke the GPL's definition of "distribution",
therefore wouldn't normally invoke the GPL's
requirement for "supplying source code", that
source code for hosted software must be made
available to everyone.

While the AGPL is intended to make sure that
someone hosting software doesn't use the lack
of GPL-based distribution to withold the source
code and maintain an advantage over everyone
else, Phil's proposal is exactly to make himself
the central authority for the works and maintain
his advantage over the public with regard to
the works.

The AGPL makes sure that everyone can modify
hosted software. Phil's proposal is to make sure
only Phil can modify his hosted documents.

Greg London