Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Kim Tucker <kctucker AT gmail.com>]

Hi all,

I have changed the subject as this is turning into a separate thread (or 
two!).

Anthony:

You are right the changes required from SA 1.0 to 4.0 seem to be minimal.

If _nothing_ substantial needs to be changed, then the recommendation
not to use the license here -
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ - can simply be removed.

Regarding what specifically needs to change in CC SA 1.0, see this
draft on the wiki which illustrates a draft SA 4.0 matching the draft
3s of the other 4.0 licenses:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_SA_4.0

Comment welcome.

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

> I don't.

> Also, the really drastic difference between
> SA-1.0 and LPL is that LPL lets you add restrictions,
> so long as they're restrictions which are signed off
> by the people who define the LKD.
> SA-1.0 doesn't allow you to add restrictions.

If I understand you correctly, I think your point is that the licence
should not refer to the freedoms via an external link with content
which might change independently of the licence.
I have noted this on the discussion page:
http://wikieducator.org/Talk:Libre_Puro_License#lqt_thread_11850 and
updated the third bullet in the LPL.
Thanks

Kim

PS Libre Puro Licence discussions should probably continue here:
http://wikieducator.org/Talk:Libre_Puro_License
rather than on this list.

On 2 May 2013 18:41, Anthony <osm AT inbox.org> wrote:
> 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.