Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>]

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Kim Tucker <kctucker AT gmail.com> wrote:

Comparing the section "4. Restrictions" in SA 1.0 and BY-SA 3.0
suggests areas for revision of CC SA 1.0:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/legalcode
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

I don't see much.  The DRM terminology has changed a bit.  But no one really follows that anyway.  There was the addition of jurisdiction licenses, but I believe the notion of jurisdiction licenses (which never really accomplished anything useful) is being abandoned in 4.0 anyway.  There are terms about compatible licenses and license elements, but this is pretty much unused.

I really don't see anything of any real significance, relevant to SA 1.0, which changed.  I admit I haven't given it a really close examination, though.

CC SA 1.0 certainly has some weaknesses now and updating it would be
important if the Creative Commons were to bring it out of retirement.

This was my question.  What are the weaknesses?  What specifically needs to be updated?

 

The Libre Puro Licence is similar in the sense that it too does not
require attribution and is also copyleft.

I guess you could call it copyleft if you trust whoever defines "the Libre Knowledge Definition" to always properly define copyleft.

I don't.