Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 11 May 2007 03:09 pm, Dana Powers wrote:
> >From the FDL:
>
> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
> Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
> modifications and/or translated into another language.
>
> Section 4 of the FDL allows copying and distributing Modified Versions
> using what CC would call a Share-Alike condition.
>
>
> A lawyer could probably pick this apart ("work" ? "contain" ?), but
> the intent seems to be clearly directed at compilations and collective
> works like the photograph+article structure.

Perhaps the wording, but it seems reasonable logic wise that, if you choose 
to 
base your control here one the right to copy and distribute rather than the 
right to make derivatives, you should be able to come up with wording to 
accomplish this end.
>
> Dana

all the best,

drew
>
> On 5/10/07, Wolfgang Wander <wwcsmail AT gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the update Rob,
> >
> >    this is perfect news.  Since the discussion about the editorial
> > combination of images and text with regards to CC-by-SA I've not
> > published another single image under a free license and worked to educate
> > people about CC's interpretation
> > of CC-by-SA.   The FSF's clarification was exactly what I was waiting
> > for and this
> > will surely mean more material for wikimedia from me and my friends.
> >
> >    Given the GPL and it's use in free software development any other
> > statement from the FSF would have been very unexpected, yet this
> > clarification is a relief after all that waiting...
> >
> >              Wolfgang
> >
> > On 5/9/07, rob AT robmyers.org <rob AT robmyers.org> wrote:
> > > (I'm posting this here because of the recent debate about photography.)
> > >
> > > The FSF have blogged about their interpretation of the scope of the
> > > FDL:
> > >
> > > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope
> > >
> > > They support the position that Ben Mako Hill described, where use of
> > > an image to illustrate a text creates a derivative. It's well worth a
> > > read.
> > >
> > > I was particularly interested by this statement:
> > >
> > > "In cases like these where the materials complement each other, we
> > > believe that the end result is a derivative work."
> > >
> > > This contains two useful distinctions. The materials have been chosen
> > > to complement each other to form a unit of presumably increased value
> > > or greater use rather than just being aggregated. And *the end result*
> > > is the derivative work, not the text or the photo, so legal causality
> > > isn't broken.
> > >
> > > What I am curious about is what exactly this "end result" is
> > > (collective work, new multimedia work, or ...?) and how far-reaching
> > > this effect is (particularly with regard to e.g. contextual
> > > advertising).
> > >
> > > - Rob.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cc-licenses mailing list
> > > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
(da idea man)