Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Prodromos Tsiavos" <p.tsiavos AT lse.ac.uk>]

First, thanks to Andres and Paul for their comments :)

Now, a few brief comments:

When we speak about GPL2 and CC_BY_SA compatibility, we may refer to 
compatibility in two directions, i.e:
1. from GPL2 to CC_BY_SA, which is potentially possible because of the 
language of CC v3.0, provided GPL2 appears on the CC Compatible licenses 
list, but is unlikely to happen (as Paul already explained) because of the 
source code requirements of GPL2
2. from CC_BY_SA to GPL2, which to my opinion is not possible due to the 
GPL2 wording

Adam, I understand that you seem to be interested in (1), but I don't think 
you may get a straightforward answer until the list is compiled; hence, the 
questions that follow in the second part of my email :)

The 'CC-GPL' licence provides only links with meta-data and a human readable 
version of the basic features of the GPL licence; it is not a different or 
'special' GPL licence in any other way.

Hope everyone agrees with the above :)

Second, a few brief questions:

Is there a process established (or a timetable for its establishment) for 
the identification of the "Creative Commons Compatible Licenses"?

I mean, how and who will decide which are the licences that are CC 
Compatible?

Was there any related discussions/ outcomes during the iSummit 07?

Best,
pRo



> > You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the
> > terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License
> > with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative
> > Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license
> > version) that contains the same License Elements as this License
> > (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons
> > Compatible License. If you license the Adaptation under one of the
> > licenses mentioned in (iv), you must comply with the terms of that
> > license.
> (i) = same
> (ii) & (iii) = similar
> (iv) = compatible
>
> As Andres noted licenses which are sufficiently similar in terms of
> requirements, permissions and scope would eventually become listed in
> the compatible licenses list. i do however doubt that even the GPL 2
> will be compatible with CC-BY-SA as the former has lots of clauses
> concerning source code which the latter completely lacks. the more
> obvious candidates to eventually appear on this list are the GFDL and
> the FAL.


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic 
communications disclaimer: 
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm