Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 03 December 2007 02:38, Brianna Laugher wrote:
> On 03/12/2007, Gavin Baker <gavin AT gavinbaker.com> wrote:
> > > From: "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher AT gmail.com>
> > >
> > > On 02/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell AT gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I do not believe there is any point to having a copyleft license for
> > >> media which isn't strong.  Does anyone here disagree?
> > >
> > > At the risk of being stoned... yeah.
> > > I just don't consider an article that uses a photograph of mine as
> > > illustration to be a a derivative of my work.
> > > I don't want an article, blog or book author to have to license their
> > > whole text under CC-BY-SA just because they use my image.
> > > HOWEVER, I do want them to be obliged to make explicit the license of
> > > my work, that is offer it to others under the same conditions. My
> > > work, not theirs. That is how I think "weak copyleft" differs from
> > > CC-BY or PD.
> >
> > Actually, this *is* how CC BY works. The requirements of CC BY include
> > both attribution of authorship (including a linkback) and notification
> > of the license.
>
> After rereading the CC-BY legal code it does appear you (and others
> who made this point) are correct, and I was quite mistaken about the
> strength of the CC-BY license.
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
> "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms
> of this License."
>
> Indeed it seems CC-BY is already the "weak copyleft" I was thinking
> CC-BY-SA is... CC-BY is much stronger than I realised. I thought CC-BY
> just meant "include a byline with my name".
>
> I am probably not the only one who had this impression, because the
> Wikimedia Commons summary as it stands is deeply misleading.
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-3.0
>
> How embarrassing.
>
> So, is this understanding correct: using CC-BY, a reuser could create
> a derivative work that was not freely licensed, but provide info that
> the source image was CC-BY (and provide link), and that would be
> acceptable? Is that true?
>
> Well... now I think shoring up CC-BY-SA to be a strong copyleft is a
> good idea, since Greg is correct...if we can correct the
> misperceptions of people like me then I don't see why this idea
> wouldn't receive widespread support.
 
OK, CC BY is not copyleft at all.

CC BY-SA as it stands now is a weak copyleft (as we are speaking of weak here)

With CC BY, even derivatives do not need to be CC BY, with BY-SA derivatives 
do have to be BY-SA and this is the copyleft feature...

Some want a stronger copyleft as a CC option. This could possibly come about 
from making CC BY-SA stronger or from adding a CC BY-SA+ (again to use 
terminology from this thread) which would serve as the strong and leace the 
current BY-SA as the weak.

We need a different terminology though or we will possibly confuse things 
with 
this:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus

The two have an interesting interconnection though, as with a strong BY-SA 
copyleft, you could extend the CCPlus above to work with BY-SA works and not 
just works using NC... Yes? No?
>
> cheers,
> Brianna

all the best,

drew