Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

>
>> Please, CC-NC is not a copyleft license in any way,
>> shape or form.
>
> But for the purposes of this argument, it's not
> straight-up copyright, either. After all, it *does*
> grant a copy right (ie.: right to copy) the work to
> the licensee, provided there is no money stream
> involved.

Copyleft is a term with a very specific meaning.
It applies to a license which does not allow
the community to change the license on derivatives.

Alice releases a work under the YAL license.
YAL says all derivatives must be under a YAL license.
THerefore YAL is a copyleft license.

NC is not copyleft because Alice could create an NC
work, then Bob could create a derivative and license
it NC-ND-BY or something.

NC-SA is copyleft, but only because the SA part is copyleft.

And then there's the distinction of whether NC-SA is "Free"
or not, which is independed of whether it's a copyleft license,
but we already covered that.