Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Marketply <contact AT marketply.org>]

Gisle, I believe that future GPL compatibility "issues" can be solved elegantly, and what you've said about most creators not too worried about future incompatibility with GPL helps reinforce my belief.

 

Here's a way we can solve any future issues:

 

(I'm booked with a lot of work this month so here's a quick summary, and I may not be able to reply the same day).

 

Make all future GPL versions automatically compatible, except void whenever the CC community votes against compatibility.

 

Furthermore, the community may declare, as automatically compatible, any licenses of an organization. And if they do, those licenses become part of the compatible licenses.

 

There's more. For example, making the compatible licenses automatically become backward compatible with CC v4.0 and later licenses. Then add this language to the former licenses as an update-able section.

 

In turn, the stewards of the GPL license may have their community do the same for compatibility with CC licenses as pertains to copyrighted content.

 

Also, as a reassurance, people would only need a 20% vote to reject a backward compatibility (or perhaps any compatibility).

 

I know this isn't something people would readily accept this late in the game, but we'll be testing it at Marketply, so anyone may see the results and feasibility, and lessons. We'll strive to (empower our community to) make our license compatible in this manner with Creative Commons, GPL, and the MPL (to start).

Marino Hernandez

just a founder of Marketply

203-429-4205

 

> On May 11, 2013 at 3:12 AM Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
>
> I now see that the decision to use an external list is being questioned.
>
> I just want to chip in to say that I am fully in support of the external
> list solution that seems to be on the offical versioning roadmap.
>
> IMHO, it would be unworkable to intermingle the (apparently) thorny
> compatible issue with the process of getting ver. 4.0 released in a
> timely manner.
>
> I have followed the discussion between Poli, Myers, Roberts,
> Babenhauserheide and others about which version of the GPL to declare
> compatibility with. It is obvious from the discussion that this is not
> going to end in consensus very soon.
>
> On the other hand, in my experience most creators that use CC licensing
> for creative works do not give a rat's arse about the differences
> between GPLv2, GPLv3, or the yet undefined GPLv4. They just want to
> create works that others can built upon (and built upon works created by
> others).
>
> And they're not the least bit worried that the CC community at some
> point the future may decide to include GPLv4 on an external list of
> licenses that CC BY-SA isto be considered compatible with. For *most*
> people, the decision to use a CC license boils down to how much they
> feel aligned with the CC project and CC community. I.e. they do not
> require an iron-clad guarantee against their work never being
> dual-licensed under GPLv4 until they have given written consent in
> triplicate.
>
> While I respect that there are people out there who have strong opinions
> about strong vs. weak copyleft, DRM, anti-tivoization, etc., these
> concerns are (IMNSHO) very much in the periphery of the Creative Commons
> project. By all means, let those that have strong opinions about these
> things discuss them, but don't let that discussion interfere with
> process of getting ver. 4.0 released.
>
> I will like to add this: I preceive version 4.0 of six CC core licenses
> a huge improvement over the current version, both in terms of language
> (the legal code is much clearer and easier to understand), and in terms
> of content (much better aligned with copyright law in non-US
> jurisdictions). Let's get this baby off the ground!
>
> --
> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
> ========================================================================
> "Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan
> _______________________________________________
> 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