Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 09 February 2007 02:04 pm, Mia Garlick wrote:
> 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.

Thanks.
>
> > 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

Sorry, my mistake.
>
> > 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)

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)