Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 12 February 2007 06:36 pm, Mia Garlick wrote:
> comments below...
>
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:49 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.
>
> i think the amended wording actually makes it clear that CC can only
> approve a license that allows reciprocality. consequently, that
> timeline isn't wholly accurate — CC would not take the first step of
> declaring compatibility with a license that didn't already have
> compatibility in it.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
> this is a good question.  i think this and the revocation clause
> question has to be answered on a case by case basis. compatibility
> can be approved only for a particular license version or it can be
> approved for the current and any subsequent license versions.  if the
> latter is adopted, then there has to be an agreement between the
> license stewards that they will maintain the license terms to be
> essentially equivalent.  otherwise i guess one would have to stop
> compatibility at that license version that contained similar terms
> and not allow compatibility with later versions...

Mia, wouldn't this actually make things worse?

Or am I missing something basic?

Now, if I come across a CC BY-SA 2.5 work, I can hapilly use it under the 
terms of CC BY-SA 3.0. (IIRC and upgrades exist in 2.5) If we make this 
change, when I encounter a CC BY-SA 3.0 work, will I have to track down which 
parts have come from some other compatible license and if they are still 
compatible before I use the work in a BY-SA 3.5 license?

Is this an off the wall concern due to lack of understanding?
>
> > 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)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --
> > Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> > Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)