Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

On Feb 9, 2007, at 11:00 AM, drew Roberts wrote:

> 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?

yes, 4(b) applies if you are within the CC family of licenses.  the  
compatible license is the governing license if you choose to  
relicense under that license.

> 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?

there has never been any suggestion of making software licenses  
compatible with content licenses and there is no reason to start that  
discussion now.  the very definition of a compatible license  
demonstrates that it would not be possible to have the GPL  
interoperable with the BY-SA because, as you point out, the GPL has  
source code requirements, which do not have "the same purpose,  
meaning and effect" as the License Elements of the BY-SA

> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses