Development of Creative Commons licenses

[sebastian nielsen <nielsen.sebastian AT gmail.com>]

the problem of allowing a derative by-nc-sa work to be released as by-sa is that a commercial user then can change color of one pixel, then it become derative and the "noncommercial" clause is bypassed.

I understand that nc is a restriction, but its a very small restriction compared to nd or Non-CC license.

The way of allowing a derative work of a by-sa be released under by-nc-sa would be still very free.

Maybe the compatibility could be solved by restricting so a derative work of a by-sa can ONLY be released as by-nc-sa IF the derative work also is at least derative work of a work released under by-nc or by-nc-sa, whose author is other than the derative work.

so if you make a derative work using a work of by-sa, you must release it under by-sa, but if you make a derative work which combines 2 or more source works consisting of a nc-sa-work and a non-nc-sa work, you can release dem under the by-nc-sa license.

to prevent cheating the bypass by creating a own work licensed under by-nc-sa and then using it to impose a nc restriction on a by-sa derative, at least one of the nc-works must be released by someone other than yourself.

what about this?

The whole thing is about making a universal license, that can be used when combining works of different CC licenses, as long as none of the source works is ND.

Den 1 aug 2012 18:43 skrev "drew Roberts" <zotz AT 100jamz.com>:

On Sunday 22 July 2012 21:25:04 sebastian nielsen wrote:
> The point of the SA license is to prevent a creator from releasing his
> derative works for example under public domain or under a "copyright
> reserved" non-CC license, so new creators can adapt on the derivate
> works.

The reason I use BY-SA is so my work can be Free and *remain* Free. What you
suggest here would throw that out the window. No way.

If those who choose an NC license would be OK with us dropping the NC so long
as we use it in a BY-SA work, they should let us all know and then BY-SA
could be the universal license. (I will not hold my breath though.) Well,
except for those pesky ND folks who could also do the same but that seems
even less likely.


all the best,

drew
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community