Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber AT creativecommons.org>]

David Chart <bydosa AT davidchart.com> writes:

> I think it would be a bad idea to allow works currently licensed under
> CC-BY-SA to be relicensed under the GPL. The authors releasing those
> works could have released them under the GPL, but chose not to. Having
> CC change that decision for them without consultation would be
> politically dangerous, I fear; a lot of people would start suggesting
> that you can't trust the CC not to issue version 5.0 with a clause
> saying "Google can use this stuff however it likes under any
> licence". (Google promises not be evil, so that's OK, right?)

I think the way the MPL handled GPL compatibility is the best, most sane
way to avoid this kind of political disaster, if it really is a risk, in
4.0.  That is the license says that the MPL 2.0 work is GPL compatible
unless there's a specific string of text attached to it that says that
the author would like this to not be compatible.  So, those who are
really against GPL compatibility have a way to opt out of that on their
works.

Doing the same way for BY-SA (and probably BY) makes a lot of sense, I
think.

See also Mike's blogpost:
http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2011/12/06/mozilla-public-license-2-0-and-increasing-public-copyright-license-compatibility/