Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sun, 06 May 2012 00:44:12 +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide
<arne_bab AT web.de> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012, 21:55:02 schrieb drew Roberts:
>> > Wait, are you claiming that a Debian CD (or DVD) is not an
>> > "aggregate" (as defined in the GNU GPL v3)?
>>
>> No, it is an aggregate and that is why I say that the gplv3 is not a
>> good enough license to do what is needed for photos and such. It is why
>> I want the next BY-SA to do more than that.
> 
> This sounds like you actually want to make Debian CDs with your photos 
> illegal. In that case, I disagree: It is not what I want from a free 
> license.

Well then we need to put on our thinking hats and come up with some
innovative solutions. I would not want that restriction on Debian CDs
either, but if the only alternative proposed is to suffer through with
the level of copyleft protection photos we have with the current BY-SA
or even the gplv3 protection, or that, I say let debian ship BY-SA
photos elsewhere, or add a distribution exemption to the new BY-SA.

Could we get somewhere by a distinction of creative aggregate type
works into those where the ordering of the included works makes no
difference and those where the ordering is important?

If you can re-arrange the order of the included works on the medium and
it makes no difference, you have the same work of copyright either way,
the the gplv3 aggregate game holds.

If re-arranging the order of the works makes for a different work of
copyright, then the stronger proposed copyleft protections I have been
putting forward hold.
> 
> The big issue for me is that I want two things:
> 
> 
> 1. Debian should be able to ship my creative works alongside unfree works.

Does debian ship non-Free works alongside Free works currently?

> 2. A video-DVD which uses my music as background music should have to
> be free

Under the current BY-SA it would have to be Free.

> (and have to at least offer to ship my sources, too¹).

This it does not have to do under the current BY-SA.
> 
> Going further: I also don’t want it to be illegal to show my GPL-licensed 
> website in an online newsreader. Or in a public terminal using unfree
> software
> (like an internet café).

Does anything try and do this?
> 
> 
> Just doing one of these would be easy. Getting both right is hard. Getting 
> both perfect might be impossible. But we might be able to get the GPL to do 
> both well enough.
> 
> ¹: That level of protection is not what everyone needs, because it is 
> inconvenient for artists to have to provide sources to everything
> they create.
> That is where I see the need for cc by-sa. Breaking that is a no-go for me.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Arne
> --
> singing a part of the history of free software: 
> 
> - http://infinite-hands.draketo.de