Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Kim Tucker <kctucker AT gmail.com>]

imo, if a free culture is what we want to achieve, there is a missing
license: SA 4.0 - an update of
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ which was retired because
less than 2% of the community wanted it. Who knows what might have
happened if it had not been retired?

Kids and playful adults would be able to mix adapt and share such
resources (liberating co-created culture and knowledge) without having
to worry about where they came from (for composite resources this
would be a tree of attributions under any other CC license). On first
release of a resource with this license the creator could indicate the
source and optionally the author's details without the requirement to
attribute. Thereafter the resource is liberated and users have the
option to acknowledge resources if appropriate - e.g. if it becomes
part of an academic paper. Attribution is culturally driven in such
communities (e.g. Public Domain resources are also correctly
attributed in academic publications) - not legally mandated as in
CC-BY for example.

My main point is that the burden of attribution should be minimised to
expedite a free culture. Make it as simple as possible.

If anyone is interested helping "debug" a draft alternative to SA 4.0,
the Libre Puro License, please take a look:

http://wikieducator.org/Libre_Puro_License

Comment from anyone with the legal insight to debug and launch this
license are welcome.

Thanks

Kim

On 16 February 2013 17:53, Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
> Hello for the third time,
> Section 3(a)(3) of CC-by-sa-v4.0draft3 states:
>
> [...]
>>      3. If requested by the Licensor, You must, to the extent
>>         reasonably practicable, remove any of the information
>>         required by Section 3(a)(1)(A-C).
> [...]
>
> where information in 3(a)(1)(A-C) is basically the names of the
> authors and of other parties to be attributed, copyright notices and
> disclaimers.
>
> An equivalent clause is included in the draft3 of CC-by-v4.0.
>
> I am still convinced that this clause does not meet the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines.  See my previous message [1] about this same issue
> in draft2.
>
> [1] https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2012-August/007118.html
>
> Since I don't think that a license can (allow a licensor to) forbid an
> accurate credit and meet the DFSG at the same time, I recommend that
> this clause be dropped entirely from CC-v4.0 licenses, or, at least,
> amended so that it says:
>
> |  3. If requested by the Licensor, You must, to the extent
> |     reasonably practicable, remove any inaccurate or
> |     misleading information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A-C).
>
> I hope this suggestion may be implemented in the next draft.
>
>
> --
>  http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
>  New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
> ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
>  GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>