Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 28 February 2007 01:35 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You would be wrong if you mean, for example, combining non-free game
> objects with a free game "engine" that plays the resulting game. Most
> free software advocates think this is perfectly okay.

No, I definately don't mean what you surmise I might. Think more of the 
promises put forth for a language like Eiffel. Where people could provide 
objects for others to reuse. Think library but with much smaller code and 
functionality. Now read what I wrote above again.

Still, to use the example of the engine and the levels or other content, this 
may actually be something worth some discussion here.

Let me ask a question of all of us here...

Does anyone know of any significant improvements, especially multi 
generational, when it comes to photos and illustrations licensed with 
copyleft licenses or other Free licenses?

If not, we may have hit on a key difference that is near the heart of the 
issue for some. The engine one would think gets improved as time goes by. The 
engine author(s) would supposedly directly benefit from this. Do the photo or 
illustration authors get any of the same benefits? 
>
> There are a number of counter examples used to justify this point. For
> example, if it weren't true:
>
> 1) Free license any word-processing document you create with AbiWord
>
> 2) Likewise, any document written with MS Word couldn't be
> free-licensed, or you couldn't use MS Word to edit GPL or By-SA documents.

1 and 2 are not relevant as far as I can see, can you explain why you posted 
them as examples?
>
> 3) It would be illegal to distribute internet RFP descriptions of
> protocols used by your software along with the documentation for that
> software (verbatim-licensed material mixed with free-licensed)

I don't even get this one. Are you talking in a book?
>
> In fact, of course, Debian does have an issue with some of these cases,
> but that's because they have a goal of delivering a 100% free
> distribution, not because it is a violation of free licenses (in fact or
> in intent) not to.

Now, just in broad terms, one reason I am making copyleft works other than 
programs is becuase I feel my copyleft code contributions fall way short of 
the benefits I get from Free code and I want to do more in return.

I guess important questions might be...

Are there any practical benefits to using BY-SA as opposed to BY on 
photographs? Will copyleft actually work for photos and illustrations? Or 
will it only work if we can find some solution to what we are discussing?
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)