Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 09 February 2007 01:15 pm, Mia Garlick wrote:


Just to be clear... In 4b.

If you use a compatible license, you are bound only by the terms of that 
compatible license. 

The language:


If you license the Derivative Work under the terms any of the licenses
mentioned in (i), (ii) or (iii) (the "Applicable License"), you must comply
with the terms of the Applicable License generally and the following
provisions: (I) You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource
Identifier for, the Applicable License with every copy or phonorecord of...

only applies if you go with (i), (ii) or (iii)?

Am I reading that right?

And from earlier in the definitions:


"Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed at
http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that: (i) has been approved
by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License,
including without limitation because that license contains terms that have
the same purpose, meaning and effect as the License Elements of this
License; and, (ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of derivatives of works
made available under that license under this License.

Since the GPL is the big copyleft license and it has source code clauses, if 
you are trying to set up the framework, has there been any discussoin as to 
how BY-SA might handle this? Just guessing, but I doubt you will ever get the 
GPL to allow conversion to BY-SA without dealing with that source code issue.

It is not going to fly to take GPL code, make a derivative and only realease 
the derivative as a binary under BY-SA. Nor with obfuscated code for that 
matter.

So, if that is one of the goals, the issue will need to be dealt with.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)