Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 27 February 2007 01:46 pm, Rob Myers wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > What do you mean by "this is not viral?"
>
> "Viral" is sometimes used as shorthand for "copyleft" but it is a bad
> description of copyleft. Viruses spread between adjacent cells by force
> without permission. Copyleft spreads only when you agree to it. So
> calling copyleft "viral" isn't accurate. In fact many people regard
> doing so as FUD.
>
> But what we are discussing here goes beyond derivation as the point at
> which copyleft takes effeect. So I was trying to avoid being too viral
> for real.

Right, any ideas on better terms that don't have the FUD baggage?

I am still chewing on the unit of packaging thought...

Let's take GPL code. What if we had a object mart where you could obtain 
objects from various places and plug them together with some of you won 
objects to make a program...

Should the unit of packaging be the object and should we allow mixing of 
copyleft and non-Free objects to make a non-Free program? I think most 
copyleft type Free Software people would say no.

So, should the unit of packaging be the work for which the copyright is 
obtained? Should we allow the mixing of copyleft and non-Free elements to 
make up a work which obtains a copyright for that work?

Perhaps this might help. I don't know. Would people be willing to publish a 
book and yet not get a copyright on that book but just on the individual 
parts?
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)