Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

On 11/05/13 02:07, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> I think it isn’t a problem in reality: If there is no source, then
> whatever you have is the preferred for for making modifications *for
> the project which uses the works under GPL* (because its developers
> have no other sources).

Yes this is how shell scripts are licensed under the GPL for example.

> > > Secondly, as it should be well-known, most works under CC licenses
> > > (especially audiovisual works) don't release the source code,
> >
> > As I said above, I think this is an issue that should be cured
> > independently from any license-conversion mechanism.
>
> Also it is no real issue, because if there is no source, then what you get 
> becomes the source for you.

The problem is that there *is* source for many music and image files. 
There are structured, multi-layer/multi-track project files that are 
flattened or rendered to produce the assets used in the game. If I wish 
to have the same ability to edit the assets that the original producer 
did, I would ideally need access to those files.

The FDL covers this with its requirement of "Transparent" versions. 
People love the FDL. ;-)

I tried to define the requirements for cultural sources here:

http://robmyers.org/2007/08/26/cultural-sources/