Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Javier Candeira <javier AT candeira.com>]

drew Roberts wrote:
>> those rights) is solving the wrong problem. The more we lower the bar for
>> "derivativeness" or "related works" or whatever the legal term, the more we
>> strenghten copyright, and with it the grasp of the copyright cartel over
>> culture.
> 
> I think you misunderstand my point then. We do not need to redefine what a 
> derivative is, we just need to state that copylefted works of the BY-SA 
> variety cannot be used even in mere aggregation with non-copylefted works. 
> One work would not be deemed a derivative of another, the license would 
> simply forbid using a BY-SA work alongside non-copyleft works.

I did misunderstand your point, and thanks for clarifying it. I now think
what you want is a intermediate license between by-sa and by-nc-sa, maybe
one with terms similar to the "no advertising use" for music in the sampling
licenses. I am right?

> So, again I ask, do we need both variations of this copyleft license? Not 
> that 
> I want yet another license mind you.

Erm, or maybe you don't want an intermediate license, but I think I got your
point.

>> As to treating different types of thing alike, computer programs and
>> literary texts are not treated alike in copyright law, nor are theatrical
>> works and sculptures, why should photographs and music be treated alike?
>> Consistence is an overrated virtue.
> 
> Well then, they can also be treated differently in the CC licenses. That 
> might 
> make for a nasty license, but you already point out that the underlying law 
> is nasty already. (Again, not advocating this, just pointing it out at this 
> point.

Good point. Let me say it again. Point.

Regards,

-- javier candeira