Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Paul, do you by any chance know what is the status of development of the CC 
Compatible Licence list?

many thanks
pRo


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Keller" <pk AT kl.nl>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" 
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl


> 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 mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses 


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