Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 13 May 2007 11:52 am, Greg London wrote:
> >> 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.

Ah, see, but this is where I differ. I think copyleft can only be rightly 
applied to Free licenses. I know others hold a different view.

Certainly the slogan I referred to - "Copyleft - all rights reversed." - 
would 
not be proper if copyleft only referred to the share alike property.

Still, I am open to being convinced I am mistaken. Early usage of the term 
would help.
>
> 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.
>

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)