Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Cc <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk>]

On 31/01/2015 10:35, Francesco Poli wrote:
> 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.

It rejected idiocy which can't be bad. When I take a photo there is 20mb 
raw file to start with off with. This will normally get converted to a 
tiff file as the first stage of processing, now we have 40mb of source. 
Then I'll start using layers and saving in a format that supports them, 
with three blending layers the TIFF file is at 100Mb. Frequently there 
will be 5 or six layers used and the file will be in 150 - 200Mb or an 
average of 6 images per Gb. A free flickr account with 1Tb of storage 
wouldn't be sufficient to hold the number of images I have there 
already. As it is with jpeg uploads flickr tells me that I've used under 
0.5% of the allotted space. If a requirement is that one makes available 
several Tb of data, the most likely response is going to be: 
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/284/529/e65.gif


I recently took 6 minutes of HD video the resulting file is 800Mb and 
I've not begun to process it yet. A family member works with 
professional broadcast film and they rarely handle file packages that 
are less that 100Gb.