Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

drew Roberts wrote:
> On Saturday 10 February 2007 12:39 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
>>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)?

Yep, I missed that detail. Reciprocity is required. That's a good thing.

Much of what I said is obsoleted by that, sorry. ;-)

Truthfully in most cases where you'd need the ability to relicense to
GPL, you aren't going to have any trouble getting permission to do so.

Cheers,
Terry

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