Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 15 February 2007 09:12 pm, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 20:17 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Even still, I don't feel very able to choose when I find
> > out that SA isn't a proper copyleft
>
> IANAL but will be incredibly surprised to find that the FDL or GPL work
> any differently.  CC BY-SA is copyleft -- copyleft just doesn't work the
> way you hoped, because your understanding that placing an unaltered
> photo alongside text creates a derivative of the photo was incorrect.

To me the question is why copyleft cannot work this way? Is it impossible or 
just the result of a choice on the part of CC? For instance, couldn't mere 
aggregation be off limits for BY-SA works? (Not should it or shouldn't it, 
could it or couldn't it?)
>
> > or that NC is being redesigned so
> > that Web 2.0 profiteers can make a quick buck off the work of those
> > who have selected NC licenses.
>
> It looks to me like there is zero change in the NC language (4(b) in
> BY-NC) between 2.5 licenses and 3.0 drafts.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)