Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Keller <pk AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl
  • Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:25:49 +0200

nope... there were no statements regarding this during the isummit so i believe that there had been no movement in this field as of lately. but than i also did not really ask anyone... /paul

On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:

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

many thanks

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Keller" <pk AT>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
<cc-licenses AT>
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://

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.


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



cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT

Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT

paul keller | knowledgeland
t: +31205756720 | e: pk AT |

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page