Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Diane Peters <diane AT creativecommons.org>]

This thread no longer directly impacts 4.0.  Please take Kim up on the suggestion to pursue the discussion on this list, http://wikieducator.org/Talk:Libre_Puro_License, rather than here.

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Kim Tucker <kctucker AT gmail.com> wrote:

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.
_______________________________________________
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

-- 
Diane M. Peters, CC General Counsel

http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters
diane AT creativecommons.org


______________________________________

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal
advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal
advice.  Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice. You
need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons tools for your
particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate legal
advice from a licensed attorney.