Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 ? It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob AT robmyers.org
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell AT gmail.com>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 ? It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too
  • Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:49:37 +0000

Quoting Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell AT gmail.com>:

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?

There are a number of older licenses (the FAL, OPL, FDL) that would benefit from
this.

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.

Relicensing would be good but:

- A project the size of Wikipedia cannot simply relicense to a CC license, but
it can upgrade to a newer version of its current license that is compatible
with BY-SA.

- Some licenses are better or more widely used and understood for different
domains such as documentation, audio, or paintings.

- Everyone likes having their own license. You've seen how many "Open Source"
licenses there are. ;-)

- Rob.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page