Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 16 April 2012 13:02:51 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:09:42 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I say make all parts of the aggregation Free. All parts to not have to be
> > copyleft or under the same copyleft license. Just under some acceptable
> > (i.e. truly) Free license.
>
> I think this is really unworkable: what is a "truly Free license"?
> For instance, I personally consider the GNU GPL v2 as a recommendable
> license, while I consider the CC-by-sa-v3.0 as a non-free license.
> Your opinions may significantly differ. The opinions of other people
> will sure differ.
>
> The only way a copyleft mechanism may actually work is that, when it
> kicks in, it mandates the adoption of the *same* license (or, at most,
> a limited set of alternative licenses, if explicit conversion clauses
> are in place).

I think your imagination is too limited.

A copyleft license could kick in one way for derivatives and that would be 
the 
copyleft bit.

It could kick in another way, and with an obviously different trigger, for 
non-derivative / non-adaptave uses that require copying for inclusion into 
other copyrighted works.

It could require the same license when kicking in due to way one and just 
just 
Free siblings and parent when kicking in in way two.

In both instances, you may need to name all acceptable licenses or have some 
trusted group to name future additions to the list. In the first instance the 
list would be very restricted and limited to the license itself or truly 
compatible copyleft licenses. In the second instance, the list would be much 
larger and would include Free copyleft and permissive licenses.

all the best,

drew