Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-02 at 23:43 -0600, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Considering that the steward of the DSL, Michael Stutz, has disavowed
> the license and no longer participates in Open Content, I think that's
> highly unlikely. Last time I talked to him, he was also pretty bitter
> that despite being one of the pioneers of free culture, he'd never been
> asked to participate in Creative Commons.

Hmm. I might need to email him and appeal to his sense of ethics. This
strikes me as a "last act of a responsible maintainer" situation.

It is actually the disavowal of the license that makes me want to see a
conversion clause -- if the license is "dead" that leaves those of us
who used in the lurch, so to speak.

Basically I have a project were some of the files are under DSL, and it
seems unfeasible to try to convert everything to it (essentially no new
content is being released under DSL -- By-SA won).

I'm sorry that he feels bad about it. I for one was very excited by the
work he did, but of course, *some* license is going to come out on top.

AFAICT, there is nothing technically wrong with the DSL, and it's pretty
nearly equivalent to By-SA (as well as pre-dating it by a couple of years).

> I think it's much more likely that the Open Content License / Open
> Publication License would be made compatible, since the author of that
> license eventually worked at Creative Commons. It's also got an
> automatic-upgrade clause, which would make it really a great candidate
> for mutual compatibility:
> 
>         http://opencontent.org/openpub/
>         
> Another possible candidate is the "AGAINST DRM LISSENCE!!!1!".

Yes, those are good candidates, though my impression of them is that
they aren't great licenses.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com