Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Source Requirements

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Source Requirements
  • Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 12:12:50 -0500 (EST)


>> there are very troubling corner cases that
>> open space for disagreement.

If you add a source requirement
it is a different license,
which means CC-ShareAlike-SourceRequirement
wont be compatible with CC-ShareAlike.

The only way I can think of doing it without
breaking everything going to the new version
of the license is to make SourceRequirements
a bolt on option like NC or ND or BY or whatever.

The one difference being that SR can only "bolt"
onto ShareAlike.

That way, old sharealike projects can upgrade to
the new version of the license, and then figure
out if they're going to change their project
and add SourceRequirement.

This would also allow the new versions of the
licenses to come out as is, without delaying
them further trying to hammer out the SR piece
and jam it into ShareAlike.

Instead, the new versions can be released,
and then work can start on adding a SourceRequirement
bolt on for the new ShareALike license.

This means you end up with two versions of
ShareAlike when you're done. CC-SA and CC-SA-SR,
and neither one is compatible with the other.
But it's either that or you break all existing
CC-SA projects and make it difficult for them
all to upgrade to a new CC-SA license that has
a SourceRequirement built into it.

Since it seems that either option ends up
creating incompatibility problems, I'd say
the best approach is to make it a bolt on
that CC can develop later.

If CC switches over from "anti-tpm" to "par-dist",
then obviously, this needs to be addressed now,
since the parallel copy should be in some
source code requirement, which is another reason
I'm still leaning towards anti-tpm-plus-local-drm.
I'd rather get the new licenses out of the chute
and be done with it and move on to other issues
that are just as complex.

Greg

--
Take the Courage Vow
http://www.couragevow.com/
Pass it on.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page