Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 12 February 2007 10:49 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Mia Garlick wrote:
> > 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."
>
> IMHO, your first draft was better. It straightforwardly requires:
>
> 1) CC approval of the license by publishing it in a particular place
>
> 2) Reciprocal publishing of a conversion clause by the compatible
> license's steward
>
> This is important because it makes reciprocity a requirement of both
> stewards in order for the decision to be binding.
>
> Consider, e.g. the following timeline:
>
> Date           Action                              Convertable?
> Jan 15, 2008 - CC publishes XAL as "compatible"      No
>                with XAF's X Arts License (XAL)*
>
> Feb 15, 2008 - XAF debates CC compatibility          No
>
> Jun 15, 2008 - Radical XAF group rejects CC          No
>
> Oct 15, 2008 - New XAF leadership reopens CC         No
>                Debate
>
> Dec 20, 2008 - XAF declares CC/XAL compatible        Yes
>
> Feb 21, 2009   XAF changes mind, removes CC          No?
>                from compatibility list
>
> Mar 23, 2009   XAF changes mind again, adds CC       Yes?
>                back to compatibility list
>
> Mar 25, 2009   XAF creates new CC-incompatible       Y/N by version?
>                XAL version
>
> etc., etc.  Note that this whole time, CC has listed XAL as
> "compatible", but XAL flakes or flip-flops on the issue, determining
> when the license is compatible. Only the reciprocity clause protects us
> from XAL reneging on its agreement with CC.
>
> I think that's a good protection to have.

My take is that CC should not list a license as compatible unless it is 
reciprocal.

Perhaps they need a compatible except for table and list reciprocity as on of 
hte column headings on that table.
>
> One thing I am concerned about is the revocation possibility. How does
> that work out exactly?  If compatibility is revoked (by either
> organization), what happens to previously converted works.**
>
> Does the date of combination of works matter?
>
> Also how does compatibility interact with the automatic upgrade clauses?
>
> Consider:
> XAL 1.0 terms are compatible with By-SA 3.0
> By-SA 3.0 includes auto-upgrade clause
> XAL 1.0 includes auto-upgrade clause
> XAL 1.2 adds "we love DRM" clause, breaking By-SA compatibility
>
> Derivers break By-SA terms by trivial conversions:
>
> By-SA 3.0 --> XAL 1.0 --> XAL 1.2
>
> (Now I can distribute DRM-locked By-SA content in violation of the
> original license)
>
> (Yes they have to "derive" at each stage, but that could be done with
> very small changes)

In all honesty, does this make our deisres for license convertability 
basically a pipe dream or a minefield? Would be better spend our efforts at 
license merging?
>
> As an opportunity -- this kind of system could *replace* automatic
> upgrade clauses, through using such a published conversion table. This
> could help with some cases, allowing particular versions to be
> converted, but not allowing conversion beyond that version (the problem
> being compatibility with existing licenses' upgrade clauses).
>
> Once more than one organization controls the upgrade path, the
> opportunity for loopholes in copyleft becomes large.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
>
> *For anyone wondering, "XAL" is a fictious license or the organization
> promoting it, and I don't mean to imply anything about the reliability
> of any existing organization.
>
> **By "converted work", of course, I mean a work derived from mixed
> license sources and released under one or the other of the "compatible"
> licenses.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)