Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 23 April 2012 13:33:41 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:48:35 -0400 zotz AT 100jamz.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > *If* that is indeed so, that is not what I want for BY-SA 4.x - I want
> > only Free siblings to be allowed in the BY-SA version of an aggregate.
>
> As I said, I am convinced that such a clause would be overreaching and
> constitute a non-free restriction...

Why do you think it is overreaching?

I have seen DFSG #9 raised as an objection but:

"License Must Not Contaminate Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed 
along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist 
that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free 
software."

the proposal does not place any restrictions on other programs/works 
distributed on the same medium. Such works can be Free or non-Free. It only 
proposes that programs/works that make up a part of a larger program/work be 
Free and that the larger work be under the same license if possible, another 
acceptable copyleft Free license if not. (And possibly a permissive Free 
license as a last resort but thinking about this again this morning, I don't 
think that would work to keep the copyleft of the work intact.)

When a compiler/collector combines these separate works into a larger 
copyrighted work, formerly unrelated works get related in the process. Just 
as you can take formerly unrelated software libraries and white a program 
that uses them and they become related in that program. They don't become 
derivatives of each other but they do become related.

Note, the copyright on the non-Free parts will prevent distribution of the 
collection unless the compiler/collector obtains the necessary permissions to 
distribute. He just needs to obtain those permission for everyone and not 
just for himself. When he obtains those permissions, the formerly non-Free 
parts become Free and we are good to go.
>
> Hence, I oppose to the introduction of such a restriction.

I urge you to think and reconsider.

all the best,

drew