Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 12 January 2012 01:33:14 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2012, 10:02:47 schrieben Sie:
> > > Do recipients of non-program works deserve fewer freedoms?
> >
> > In my mind, they do not deserve fewer freedoms. But in the mind of the
> > folks  behind the GPL, they do deserve fewer freedoms. (To use that
> > terminology.)
>
> I think that misses the point of the GPL.

Huh? The FSF thinks it unethical that code be non-Free but don't think the 
same for non-code. (IE. Art and works of opinion, etc. Non-Functional works?) 
I was not speaking to the point of the GPL in that paragraph. I was speaking 
to the beliefs and motivations of the people who control the GPL.
>
> They want to ensure that people can actually exercise their freedoms and
> that noone can take them away.

Fine with me, I *like* the gpl for my code.
>
> And that the GPLv2 survived for some 15 years before needing changes says a
> lot about their foresight.

Yes, it does.
>
> The measures they use for code can create some problems for non-code,
> though, so having the option to use cc by-sa works in combined works under
> GPL when adhering to the requirements of the GPL, but keeping cc by-sa as
> license, so people can decide to use the works under cc by-sa when they
> don’t need integration with GPL works would be optimal for me.

I don't want my BY-SA works usable under the GPL in such a way that they can 
be pulled out of a GPL program back into the original art/music space and be 
under the gpl and not BY-SA.

I want my BY-SA works to be usable alongside GPL code in some greater work 
that is a hybrid of code and art. (Or some greater non-work?)

This may take some fancy doing to achieve if it is even possible. So far 
people assure me it is impossible but not in such a way that convinces me 
they understand the possibilities I suggest.
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne

all the best,

drew