Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

On Feb 25, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:

[cut]

> When I say "mandatory", I mean mandatory for the licensor, in the  
> sense
> that a licensor cannot choose to *not* grant this option to licensees.
> In other words, I cannot release a work under the terms of CC-by-sa- 
> v3.0
> only: if I license the work under the terms of CC-by-sa-v3.0, I
> *automatically* also license it under any later version of CC-by-sa  
> and
> any jurisdiction-specific variant of CC-by-sa-v3.0 and any later  
> version
> of that jurisdiction-specific variant.
> And now even under any yet unknown license that Creative Commons will
> insert into the "list of Compatible Licenses".
> That's a lot of different licenses, indeed.
> I will *never* have enough time to review all the jurisdiction- 
> specific
> CC-by-sa-v3.0 licenses (even without taking into account that I should
> learn a huge number of different languages and their legalese  
> jargons!).
> Moreover, I *cannot* review all the future versions, since they  
> have not
> yet been written!
> And I cannot review all the random licenses that will end up being
> declared "Compatible", since I do not yet know which they are!
>
> All this means that I, as an author, would be licensing my work under
> *totally unknown* terms, should I decide to license it under
> CC-by-sa-v3.0!
> I should trust *every and each* local Creative Commons committee, for
> the present *and* the future, to always correctly preserve the  
> copyleft
> mechanism...
> Some CC-by-sa (or "Compatible") licenses could be too restrictive  
> for my
> tastes: my copyleft would be destroyed, without any possibility for me
> of knowing it.  Some other CC-by-sa licenses could be too  
> permissive for
> my tastes: my copyleft could again be destroyed (with one further
> licensing step), without any possibility for me of knowing it.

if you feel that this is all too vague and that the development of  
content ghettos in the commons is preferable, then feel free to use  
only the CC BY-SA 1.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ 
legalcode.  you will have to give warranties and you will continue to  
have the ability to request removal of authorship credits, which you  
consider to be unfree but at least you know that licensees can only  
relicense under the CC BY-SA 1.0.

[cut]

> The following is a typo, or at least it seems to be:
>
> ---> in clause 1(g) there's a "Noncommercial" that should not be  
> there,
> since this is the CC-by-sa license:
>
> |  (g)  "License Elements" means the following high-level license
> |       attributes as selected by Licensor and indicated in the title
> |       of this License: Attribution, Noncommercial, ShareAlike.

this typo was fixed in the final versions that were, as evan has  
pointed out, released last week.  see http://creativecommons.org/ 
licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode

>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> --
>  http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html
>  Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion?
> ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
>  GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses