Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

Greg,

once again you do not actually discuss my points with me, just make your own 
points. Some old, some new.

On Monday 26 June 2006 04:07 pm, Greg London wrote:
> drew,
>
> Your scheme violates three basic requirements
> of the Open Source Definition.
>
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
>
> : 3. Derived Works
> : The license must allow modifications and derived works,
> : and must allow them to be distributed under the same
> : terms as the license of the original software.
>
> private derivatives, and derivatives made off-wiki are not
> allowed by your scheme.
>
> : 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
> : The rights attached to the program must not depend
> : on the program's being part of a particular software distribution.
> : Rationale: This clause forecloses yet another class of license traps.
>
> Your "product" here is "The One Wiki".
> And the rationale on the OSD site for disallowing this
> is clear: this sort of scheme is a *license trap*.
> Phil only allows modifications as long as they remain
> part of a particular distribution: his.
> This is a clear license TRAP.
>
> : 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
> : No provision of the license may be predicated on
> : any individual technology or style of interface.
>
> Your scheme of "The One Wiki" violates this principle
> directly. The scheme is technology specific, requiring
> all modifications through a particular website, through
> some particular software that Phil chooses. The software
> may change, but it is specific to whatever the site is
> using at the time.
>
> The community may differ as to whether to call
> OSD compliant licenses "Free" or "Open Source"
> or "Shared" or whatever, but I think the community
> agrees that this is a minimum set of requirements
> to satisfy the community's standards. Your scheme
> directly violates three of the ten minimums.
>
> And even if you meet all ten, any scheme could get
> rejected because of additional bolt-ons that may not
> violate the minimum requirements but have too much
> overhead and would be rejected by the community.
> And I say your scheme has overhead to it.

All well and good, (and I do appreciate your pointing out the other problems 
wrt the Free definitions) but at this point in my thought experiment, I am 
not seeking to actually make a new Free License. I am instead trying to see 
how to modify the "copyright assignment to the one, all others get BY-ND" 
scheme in such a way as to put everyone on as equal footing as possible and 
in as copyleft a manner as possible given that the project originator is 
intent on no legal private mods as the main stated goal and the reason given 
is for the purposes of learning from the mods.

I don't know why I even bit on this as I am not invested in it. Honestly, I 
have already spent too much of my precious time on it.

Also honestly, this is so much more inefficient for something like we have 
been doing than sitting in a room together it is not funny. It feels like 
this could have been hashed out in a half an hour or so. As it is, I still 
feel like it is nowhere near being sorted.
>
> I understand what you're saying, I get how you want
> it to operate. You don't need to explain the scheme to
> me any further. I get it. And I reject that it is Free,
> Libre, Open, or Shared.

To try and end my time donation to this:

Phil - my honest advice is that you should make your project BY-SA and 
explain 
to everyone the benefits of keeping publically accessable versions of all 
mods available. Maintain a registry of modded docs and offer to host modded 
docs free for those who do not wish to host their own modded docs publically.

In a few years, decide if you are happy with the results. Only then take 
steps 
to start again in a non-copyleft way.

all the best to everyone,

drew
(da idea man)
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145