Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:11:52 -0600 Sarah Pearson wrote:

[...]
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ben Finney <
> bignose+hates-spam AT benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> 
> >
> > What is the current state of discussion to change the ShareAlike
> > requirements to guarantee the recipient can actually make derivative
> > works from the corresponding source?
> 
> 
> Although it was raised
> <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2012-April/006741.html> and
> discussed during the 4.0 process, CC ultimately decided not to add a source
> requirement in BY-SA 4.0.

I remember the outcome and I think it was an unfortunate one.

I agree with Ben on the importance of the source availability
requirement for a license (such as CC-by-sa) that claims to implement a
copyleft mechanism.
See for instance this old reply of mine:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2013-April/007367.html

> There were many reasons articulated as to why
> not, including the difficulty of defining what source looks like for all
> the types of content licensed under BY-SA

I am convinced that the definition of source found in the GNU GPL is
adequate for any type of work.
I wrote an essay about this definition of source. For those who are
interested, it may be read here:
http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissource.html


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 fsck is a four letter word...
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpytTPQkzPn4.pgp
Description: PGP signature