Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 12 February 2007 06:52 pm, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 2/12/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > My take is that CC should not list a license as compatible unless it is
> > reciprocal.
>
> Why would someone bother making a license compatible then? Why not
> simply make the new license an exact duplicate of the compatible cc
> license?  Doing so could only reduce the number of failure modes.

I am not sure I understand your objection in relation to my suggestion. 
Perhaps the suggestion got muddy by my trying to make it a bit more flexible.

Let me try again with a simpler version:

Lest's say CC maintains two pages:

1. Licenses which would otherwise be declared to be compatible but are not 
since they are reciprocal.

2. Licenses which are indeed compatible.

On the first page, CC canlist all licenses they deem would be compatible if 
they were only reciprocal. As those licenses evaluate the particular CC 
license and decide to list it on their page 1, each license group can not 
contact the other and coordinate a date to move the respective licenses to 
their page 2s.

Of course, other license groups could list CC licenses on theor page 1s first.

The complication was that you could make page 1 a table instead indicating 
not 
only reciprocity but also, element by element, compatibility, perhaps even 
with a possibility of words like almost or nearly to show where the elements 
are close but not quite good enough.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)