Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Philippe Bradley <philbradley AT gmail.com>]

On 12 September 2011 19:21, Thomas Beale
<thomas.beale AT oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
> But - we don't want to prevent other kinds of derived artefact that are not
> themselves archetypes, e.g. generated code skeletons etc. Now, CC-BY-SA
> would normally apply to these as well.

Not if these are in fact collections, rather than
derivatives/adaptations. Here's my thinking:

CC-BY-SA 3.0 defines collections (1(b)) as: "a collection of literary
or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or
performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject
matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason
of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute
intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety
in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each
constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which
together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that
constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as
defined below) for the purposes of this License."

And it doesn't apply itself to such collections (4(a)): "This Section
4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection, but this
does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made
subject to the terms of this License."

---

Now, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what it is you
want to let slip out of the CC-BY-SA cascade. I'll post what's on the
wiki about this to save others the effort, which they can dedicate to
deciding whether these would be Collections or not. I thought that the
code skeletons would be, dunno about these. I think nailing a readily
parsable definition/explanation of what is to slip out, rather than
listing examples, would be a decent step forward here.

"- any other kind of generated product, such as
- program code
- a UI form
- an XML schema
- or any other non-archetype artefact"