Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 21 January 2012 04:12:06 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2012, 12:02:05 schrieb drew Roberts:
> > On Thursday 12 January 2012 02:10:07 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2012, 10:13:33 schrieb drew Roberts:
> > > > > Hence, distributing this PDF file under the terms of the
> > > > > CC-by-sa
> > > > > license, without making LaTeX source available, is like saying:
> > > > > "you may modify it, but, good luck, if you actually want to do
> > > > > so!"
> > > >
> > > > And if you never had latex yourself in the first place?
> > >
> > > Then you can get it in the same way as you are able to learn to paint.
> >
> > What?
>
> You can download if for free and you can learn using it.

I've got it. Tried mucking with it a few times. Found it got in the way of my 
creative writing.
>
> Latex is free software and available virtually everywhere, so not having it
> in the first place means that you are too lazy to install it.
>
> If you did not get the latex source in the first place (if that’s what you
> mean), then the one who sent you the file under GPL made a license
> violation.

You are missing the point. I am the one who created the file in the first 
place and it was with a program that does not produce latex.

Let's say I have just completed a 50,000 word plus novel as a part of the 
NaNoWriMo challenge in the month of November, and I have been releasing it 
BY-SA on a blog as I go. Something like this:

http://tingsnovelz.blogspot.com/

Let's say that by the time I am done with that I am burned out and am not 
willing to make the effort to make latex source for the world. I would be 
happy if someone volunteered to make it for everyone but I am moving on.

So what is the situation. My release is unacceptable source that can be used 
by someone else as a source to make something that is then acceptable source?
>
> If you had no latex source to begin with, because you got the file under a

Again, I did not get a file. I made one.

> license without source code requirement, then you don’t have more rights
> than the ones who get the file from you, so the symmetry of all
> contributors is intact, which at least to me means that this would not be a
> license violation.

So if I get you right, the license would only require you give source at 
least 
as good as you got for everyone but the original author? Or?
>
> That’s then like sending a PNG and only using that for doing changes -
> which is what the Wesnoth people do.
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne

all the best,

drew