Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 09 April 2012 04:58:37 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:50:23 -0400 zotz AT 100jamz.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 23:42:48 +0200, Francesco Poli
> >
> > <invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:18:30 +0200 adam wrote:
> > >> On 07/04/12 04:52, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >> > If I were adam I'd want some form of one-way BY
> > >> > and BY-SA compatibility with GPL rather than adding source
> > >> > requirements to CC licenses.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > I am already asking for a one-way conversion clause from CC-by-sa to
> > > GPL and from CC-by to zlib.
> >
> > No. Please. Not if we get proper copyleft protection into BY-SA this
> > round for things like photos and images in video etc. I don't think the
> > GPL provides this protection
>
> [...]
>
> I don't think the GNU GPL lacks any useful "protection" (whatever that
> may mean) for photos or images. Hence I respectfully disagree with your
> concerns.

You may not think so, but it does. As has been discussed at great length on 
these lists for years. BY-SA 3.0 lacks the same protection and is one reason 
I have stopped taking photos for the world and licensing them BY-SA. I still 
write lyrics and license them BY-SA and still code occasionally and release 
that GPL.

So, the GPL, and the current BY-SA lack enough protection to change licensing 
choices and even my artistic motivations and production.

So, unless you are a strong copyleft proponent and a frequent creator of 
photos and images who wants strong copyleft protection for them, please cut 
the condescending comments. Go back and do the research on the lists instead 
of making such comments. Then you will at least know what it may mean.

If you are such a person on the other hand, look into things a bit more 
carefully as you may not have the protection you think you do.

all the best,

drew