Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 10 February 2007 12:27 pm, Mia Garlick wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2007, at 5:11 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> >> I would hope that, in the cases where CC decides to post a license as
> >> "compatible", that there is a reciprocal statement being made by the
> >> parties controlling that other license.
> >
> > I thought I just read that in the draft Mia posted.
> >
> >> From Definitions:
> >
> > (b) "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.
> >
> > See (ii)? Now presumably (ii) is redundant in the license itself
> > except as a
> > safeguard? Surely CC will not list it as approved if it does not do
> > so. Or is
> > CC going to play games with us and put licenses there as approved
> > but we
> > can't actually use them because they don't meet (ii)?
> >
> > Actually Mia, does this need to be fixed?
> >
> > Thinking further, I think it does need fixing. Here is my suggested
> > rewording:
> >
> > (b) "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is
> > listed at
> >     http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that 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. Note: Creative Commons will not approve such a license
> > unless
> >     it explicitly permits the relicensing of derivatives of works made
> >     available under that license under this License.
>
> a license will not be deemed compatible unless it is reciprocal in
> recognizing and enabling compatibility.  i don't think one can
> include a "Note" in a legal definition.  would this rephrasing allay
> concern?
>
> ""Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed
> at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses thathas been
> approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this
> License, including without limitation because that license: (i)
> 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."

Mia, I don't think it deals with the issue I raise.

Will there ever be a license that meet (i) and does not meet (ii)? If not, 
(ii) is not necessary. CC just need to commit that there will never be a 
license that satisfies (i) that does not satisfy (ii).

If so, we have issues. It would mean that people who check the status as per 
(i) and fine that license X is compatible with BY-SA could not trust that it 
is indeed compatible but would also have to go and check license X for 
themselves to see that the explicit permission was there.

Is it clear what I am saying?

Basically, (i) is enough for the license needs. (ii) arises as a metter of 
trust between those who license their works with CC licenses and CC itself.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)