Development of Creative Commons licenses

[shell_layer-creativecommons AT yahoo.com.au]

As the FSF points out at

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseNotOriginal

if you can release a derivative under a different licence, then you can 
release the original under that licence, by making a change, releasing that 
under the new licence, then taking the modified version and changing it back.

Carl


--- On Sun, 29/6/08, geni <geniice AT gmail.com> wrote:

> From: geni <geniice AT gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] CCau v3.0 public launch
> To: "Development of Creative Commons licenses" 
> <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Received: Sunday, 29 June, 2008, 8:38 PM
> 2008/6/17 Björn Terelius <bjorn.terelius AT gmail.com>:
> > Geni wrote:
> >
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> I would prefer not allowing redistribution of
> the work under later
> >>> versions of the license, as there is no
> *guatantee* that the later
> >>> versions will preserve the original intention.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> It is required to update the licenses in order to
> deal with changes in
> >> the law and technology.
> >>
> > A license or parts of it may be deemed unenforcable or
> invalid in which
> > case that part will be considered void, but i know of
> no jurisdiction
> > that *requires* the license authors to release a new
> version of the license.
> > Whether or not a new license is released, the work
> will still be licensed
> > under the unenforcable license.
> >
> > In practice, it is certainly neccesary to update
> licenses from time to
> > time, but I consider it the creator/maintainers
> responsibilty to apply
> > the new license to the work.
> 
> The FSF, CC, EFF and the people behind the FAL would appear
> to
> disagree with you. So would most of the copyright cabal on
> wikipedia
> but they are more used to dealing with people who are
> impossible to
> trace and/or dead.
> 
> > Automatically applying a later version of
> > the license can never help protecting the licensors
> rights, since the
> > work is still released under the older, possibly
> flawed, license. It can,
> > however, harm the licensor if the new license is
> flawed but the old wasn't.
> 
> Failing to update can however fail to support the
> licensor's intention
> which is of at least equal import.
> 
> > By allowing the use of any later CC-license, one
> actually gives away the
> > complete rights to the work to the CC-license authors,
> as the authors could
> > in principle change any terms of the license text as
> they see fit.
> 
> Doubtful. It is unlikely that the courts would uphold a
> license that
> went against the intentions of the original.
> 
> > Again, while *I* trust the CC authors, I can easily
> think of people who would
> > not want to rely on the honesty of the CC community.
> 
> They are free to write yet another messy homebrew license.
> Licenses
> left unmaintained tend to become progressively more
> problematical over
> time.
> 
> 
> > As stated above, no such improvements will benefit the
> licensor.
> 
> It will keep the license in line with their intentions and
> will allow
> their work to continue to receive and audience.
> 
> > If the licensor do trust the CC-community and wish to
> let the licensee
> > choose which CC-version to use, I think he or she
> should say so
> > explicitly by writing somthing like:
> > "CC BY-SA 2.5 or (at your option) any later
> version"
> 
> This rapidly results in what is best described as a
> horrific mess.
> License compatibility issues are always a problem. I see no
> reason to
> add to them.
> 
> > By handling updates in this way one allows the
> licensor to either decide
> > the exact version or let the licensee make that
> decision, without
> > mentioning the different licenses in the license
> agreement.
> 
> There are ways people can force an exact version if they
> really want to.
> 
> 
> -- 
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses


      Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail