cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl

From: Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:19:31 +0200

to provide some background here are two links to an article by Mia Garlik explaining the rationale behind the changes in version 3.0 of the CC licenses. the full article can be found here: http:// wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3

On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Paul Keller wrote:

hmm. there is no point in interoperability (as in being able to
relicense something that was originally under one of the licenses
under the other): the GPL is intended for software, the CC licenses
are for works under copyright that are *not* software. as rob
explained distributing CC-BY-SA and GPL licensed works together is
fine both under the GPL and the CC-BY-SA. the only 'problem' in this
regard is the position of Debian legal. as far as i know they are
still deliberating if they are going to consider CC-BY-SA 3.0 (which
resolved most of the issues they had with the pervious versions) free
according to the DFSG or not. one would hope that they will.

see: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Debian

will be see two 'prosumers' sitting on a bench, one asking "is that an
'organisation for free licences'?" and the other replying "no! thats a
free license organsation!... wankers!"

and i won't even get started on asking questions about the FDL...i've
already made up my mind on that one...

as i said before the GFDL is one of the obvious candidates for
inclusion in the list of CC compatible licenses. if i am not entirely
mistaken the incompatibility between CC-BY-SA and GFDL is the main
reason for the inclusion of the compatability clause in CC-BY-SA 3.0.
i am not really getting why the GFDL seems to be get you even more
upset when thinking about compatibility. in the case of the GFDL
there is a real need for compatibility as both licenses are intended
for the same type of works, namely non-software works protected by
copyright.

see: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#BY- SA_.E2.80.94_Compatibility_Structure_Introduced

/paul

[cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, adam hyde, 07/02/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, Andres Guadamuz, 07/02/2007
  - Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, adam hyde, 07/02/2007
    - Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, Rob Myers, 07/02/2007
      - Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, Prodromos Tsiavos, 07/02/2007
      - Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, adam hyde, 07/02/2007
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, Paul Keller, 07/02/2007
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, Paul Keller, 07/02/2007
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, Prodromos Tsiavos, 07/02/2007
        Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, Paul Keller, 07/02/2007
        Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, Prodromos Tsiavos, 07/02/2007
        [cc-licenses] one last comment on similarity, adam hyde, 07/03/2007
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, Evan Prodromou, 07/02/2007
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl, adam hyde, 07/02/2007
      - [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea? (was: cc-by-sa and gpl), Javier Candeira, 07/02/2007
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?, Rob Myers, 07/03/2007
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?, Prodromos Tsiavos, 07/03/2007
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?, Javier Candeira, 07/03/2007