cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
- From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
- To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] BY-NC-SA 4.0d1 Notes
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:59:42 -0400
On Saturday 07 April 2012 13:12:14 Rob Myers wrote:
> On the one hand this makes clear that reblogging or critiquing ARR work
> in a CC context isn't an attempt to CC license it. Which is good.
>
> On the other, it does make it clear that BY-SA is a *very* weak
> copyleft, going further than the FDL and more akin to the Open Gaming
> License in its ability to interleave non-free material. Which may be bad.
>
> If BY-SA is very weak copyleft and may accompany ARR work, what does
> this mean for "stronger copyleft", as per Drew, Wikipedia and the FSF?
Well, I know for me, if we don't make a reasonable stab at making the
copyleft
aspects of BY-SA stronger this round, I am thinking seriously of adopting
BY-NC-SA for my photos and such with an additional permission to use the work
for commercial purposes so long as the resulting work also grants the same
commercial waiver. I would hate to do this but... We shall see.
all the best,
drew
-
[cc-licenses] BY-NC-SA 4.0d1 Notes,
Rob Myers, 04/07/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] BY-NC-SA 4.0d1 Notes, Sarah Pearson, 04/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] BY-NC-SA 4.0d1 Notes,
drew Roberts, 04/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] BY-NC-SA 4.0d1 Notes,
Gregory Maxwell, 04/10/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] BY-NC-SA 4.0d1 Notes, drew Roberts, 04/11/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] BY-NC-SA 4.0d1 Notes,
Gregory Maxwell, 04/10/2012
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.