Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 12 January 2012 13:12:26 Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> 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.

The problem with this is that it would mean that such by-sa works and gpl 
works could not be used together whereas I for one at least, want my by-sa 
works to be able to be used with gpl works without putting them under a gpl 
license.

Also per MPL 2.0 section 3.3 I think they may have made a mistake in using 
the 
language "Larger Work" as what happens if you want to use a piece of the 
licensed work in what turns out to be a Smaller Work?

Also per 1.7 speaks of a separate file or files.

This will not necessarily get it done for art, music, literature, etc.
>
> 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-incr
>easing-public-copyright-license-compatibility/

all the best,

drew