Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Thursday 05 January 2012 10:44:15 Greg London wrote:
> I think the best thing mentioned thus far is that CC-SA and GNU-GPL are
> about as compatible with each other as CC-SA and CC-SA-NC.
>
>
> Alice makes a work and licenses it CC-SA.
> Bob makes a work and licenses it CC-SA-NC.
>
> Charlie wants to take those two works and combine them and release them
> under one license. If Charlie uses CC-SA,  then Bob will be upset because
> his NC clause has been removed.  If Charlie uses CC-SA-NC, then Alice will
> be upset because a NC restriction was added to a derivative of her work.
>
> SA and GPL are the same way.

No.

> They are incompatible.

Yes.

> Combining works with  
> both licenses and releasing that combination under a single license will
> upset someone. If you do not see this, reread the example of Alice and Bob
> above.

Yes and no. In the case of combining my BY-SA work with Bob's BY-NC-SA work, 
I 
would be upset on philosophical grounds. In the case of combining my BY-SA 
work with Bob's GPL work, I would be upset on technical grounds. (Well, some 
philosophical but on a whole lesser level.)
>
> The only way this could possibly work would be if the works are combined
> not as a derivative but as a collection.  The question is whether CC-SA
> could work that way. GNU-GPL can work with collections. Not sure about
> CC-SA because it was never an issue before as far as I know.

Can we really not find some wording (meta language?) for copyleft Free 
licenses that allows works under them to be freely mixed while maintaining 
their original licenses? With any new additions to be under whatever Free 
copyleft license the adder chooses so long as it was one of the ones on the 
existing parts?

Simple text example:

Paragraph 1 GPL (preexisting text)
Paragraph 2 BY-SA (preexisting text)
Paragraph 3 GPL (preexisting text)
Paragraph 4 BY-SA (preexisting text)
Paragraph 5 BY-SA (added text)

I can see that if this were the case, all would need to have that source 
requirement for code that I mentioned recently.
>
> Greg

all the best,

drew
>
>
>
>
> Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>
> To: Development of Creative Commons licenses
> <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 04:44:00 GMT+00:00
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community