Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Javier Candeira <javier AT candeira.com>]

rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>:
> 
>> The FSF sayd the original BSD is Free but not GPL compatible IIRC. Yes:
>>
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>>
>> If they think BY and BY-SA are non-Free, can you tell us why?
> 
> The FSF?
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
> 
> "There is literally no specific freedom that all Creative Commons licenses
> grant. Therefore, to say that a work "uses a Creative Commons license" is to
> leave all important questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When 
> you
> see such a statement, please suggest making it clearer. And if someone 
> proposes
> to "use a Creative Commons license" for a certain work, it is vital to ask
> immediately "Which one?""

I think that now the CC buttons state which license allows what, this
requirement is fulfilled. Or one could say that FSF currently publishes one
license that allows binary-only distribution of programs, so when someone
proposes to use a "GPL license" for a certain work, it is vital to ask
immediately "Which one?. The lesser one?". Time to move on?

People usually do, in fact. They pick GPL or LGPL and state it; we should
make sure that it is easier for users of CC to state clearly which flavour
they are using than to hide it.

-- javier