Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Francesco Poli
<invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
> Anyway, I don't see why you seem to think that a clause allowing a
> CC-by-sa → GPL conversion would be harmful.

It would allow people to create derivatives of my CC-BY-SA works which
are licensed only under GPL.

In cases where the requirements of the GPL are a burden, this means I
might not be able to reasonably use derivatives of my CC-BY-SA work.

> Do you see the source-availability requirement as a non-free
> restriction?

In the cases where I choose to release my work under CC-BY-SA, and not
GPL, I see it as a burdensome restriction.  If I thought it was a good
restriction, I'd release my work under GPL.

Whether it's a "non-free" restriction is not something I care to worry about.

>> Authors do not have a duty to help others make
>> modifications.
>
> I think the spirit of Free Software is that authors should make life
> for modifiers as easy as possible.

And that's exactly what I mean when I say that the intent of the FSF
is different from the intent of CC.

I shouldn't have to swear an oath to the principles of Free Software
in order to use CC-BY-SA.

>> If we want a less common case, what's the source for a sculpture?
>> What about that die-cast toy that I was talking about earlier?
>
> We are not talking about material objects.

No, we're not.  We're talking about the copyrighted work which is
embedded in the material object.

> We are talking about information that may be processed by computers.

CC-BY-SA applies to more than just information that may be processed
by computers.