Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

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.