Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <ok AT theendput.com>]

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab AT web.de> wrote:

And just like there are reasons why people do not add nc-clauses for their works, there are reasons why people do not add source-requirement: For many types of works, that is a huge hassle for little benefit. For the types of works which need source-requirement to get copyleft in the real world, this hassle cannot be avoided, but for the others, it would be great if we could avoid the hassle.

As it stands right now, the decision is “will I want to combine this with sourcecode or text intended for a PDF at some point in the future? If yes, I *must* use the GPL or cc by”. Since I also write prose and programs, my answer is “definitely yes!”.

So the current licensing ecosystem *forces me* to either forfeit copyleft or use the GPL for all types of works, even for the ones for which it is not suited well.

One-way compatibility from cc by-sa to GPL or AGPL would change this: I could simply put all new art and music I create under cc by-sa and still use it in concert with my GPL-licensed Scribus design-files and the existing art from Wesnoth and others.

I know I'm responding to a long post with a short one-sentence response, but I just don't get this part.

Why can't you just dual license?