Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Nicolas Suzor <nic AT suzor.net>]

On 02/05/14 11:03, Puneet Kishor wrote:
> Can't respond to the scope, but agree with the sentiment in the first
> para above. If the problem exists then the size or scope of problem
> doesn't matter. If someone asks about compatibility, I want to be able
> to say the licenses are compatible. Such a question was raised at the
> RDA Plenary in Dublin in March, and the lack of compatibility was noted.

I actually think scope does matter when we're talking about trade-offs.
For example, we should discourage the use of vanity licences, but if
doing so is likely to result in a larger practical incompatibility
problem, we might choose a different method to do so - e.g. education
over legal incompatibility.

The same goes for one-way compatibility: we should prefer fully
compatible licences, but perhaps not if it's going to perpetuate a big
problem of material that is trapped.

Essentially, the decisions here are about short-term and long-term
effects: will having stricter rules about compatibility deter greater
licence proliferation, or would it just exacerbate incompatibility?

To answer this question, I think we need to know more about the likely
effects of these changes on various (and potential) communities of
users. Are people going to be more likely or less likely to adopt
compatible licences if we raise or lower the threshold for compatibility?

It's a debate that free software advocates have had for a long time -
particularly around the LGPL. The difference is that we also need to be
careful about what existing SA licensors expect.


Nic