Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Anthony <osm AT inbox.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Francesco Poli
> <invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
>>  * CC-by-sa-v4.0 should include an explicit one-way conversion clause
>> that would allow redistribution of the work under the terms of the GNU
>> GPL version 2 or any later version
>
> That would have some major unintended consequences (at least I think
> they're unintended).  For instance, you could take a CC-BY-SA book,
> distribute it in LaTeX format under GPL, and then anyone distributing
> a copy of the book would have to include an offer for the LaTeX
> source.

No, that would be an intended effect. One of the reasons some form of
BY-SA->GPL compatibility is interesting is that some want
source-requiring copyleft for non-software, it isn't reasonable to
make source requirement for all BY-SA use, nor is it reasonable to
create another incompatible copyleft pool. If you want to require
source, use the GPL.

Mentioned at 
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/ShareAlike#Source-requiring_SA

I encourage everyone posting on this list to take a look at the 4.0
wiki as you post and update/reference in your list posts where
possible.

Mike