Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:10 PM, adam hyde wrote:

> Thanks pRo,
>
> > 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
>
>
> Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but what exactly is the problem with
> 'source code requirements' which make the GPL 'incompatible'?

GPL requires that the licensor passes on the source code with the any  
binary distribution (very short summary). CC-BY-SA does not require  
this.
if there was comatibility between GPL and BY-SA then in the direction  
(1) than this would mean that this requirement does not apply under  
the BY-SA. this is hardly compatible but at best a way to get out of  
the source code requirement of GPL. FSF will never agree to this.

in direction (2) (BY-SA --> GPL) this would mean an extra requirement  
placed on the work. so the two are also not compatible. CC will never  
allow licensees to add extra requirements on works obtained under a  
CC license.

also the GPL is a software licenses and the 6 core CC licenses are  
not intended for software. of course the original licensor can always  
dual license under GPL and CC

best, paul

> adam
>
>
>
>
> --
> adam hyde
> 'free as in media'
>
> ~/.nl
>
> http://www.flossmanuals.net
> http://www.simpel.cc
> http://www.radioqualia.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--
paul keller | kennisland
t +31205756720 | e: pk AT kl.nl | www.kennisland.nl