Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

drew Roberts wrote:
> On Sunday 02 December 2007 08:57:38 Brianna Laugher wrote:
>>On 02/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>>The purpose of copyleft is to help expand the pool of free content
>>>with a tit-for-tat mechanism.  'Weak copyleft'  simply isn't
>>>interesting in terms of its ability to achieve this goal.
>>
>>Is "weak copyleft" not comparable to the LGPL? LGPL appears to have a
>>place; why not "weak copyleft"?
> 
> Here you can find the FSF's stated reasoning behind the lgpl and when it 
> should be used over when to use the gpl instead:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
> 
> Is there some similar strategic reasoning that we can see to benefit from 
> both 
> in the same way?

Many people besides the FSF use the LGPL license, and they do not
necessarily have the same rationale.

In fact, some view the FSF rationale as fundamentally unethical (they
think it is overreaching), and they believe that the LGPL represents a
more ethical approach to free licensing -- simply because it does not
extend restrictions beyond what is clearly their own work.

Both rationales have merit, and while the FSF's rationale may be harder
to apply to By-SA images, the "don't overreach" argument is equally if
not even more applicable.

IMHO, people should have that option.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com