<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<link href="chrome://translator/skin/floatingPanel.css"
type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 13/07/11 16:52, Simon Cropper wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E1D40B8.6060400@botanicusaustralia.com.au"
type="cite">On 13/07/11 12:09, Simon Cropper wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">I have posted a thread on the Creative
Commons mail list to see if <br>
anyone is aware of such a compatibility matrix for open content
<br>
licenses. I will post back if I get some extra detail. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A researcher from Queensland University of Technology (one of the
main groups behind CC in Australia) has said that he was not aware
of any published data but he thought that work had been done in
the past and he will try and dig it up. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Cameron,<br>
<br>
After spending several days on this matter I get the distinct
feeling that the reason why compatibility matrices don't exist is
that most of the open content licenses are incompatible in some way.<br>
<br>
Check out...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms</a><br>
<br>
Which states "GFDL is not compatible with the <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons"
title="Creative Commons">Creative Commons</a> <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses"
title="Creative Commons licenses">Attribution-ShareAlike</a>
license", which is the closest CC license to this copyleft license.
<br>
<br>
So projects like GRASS GIS and Mapblender that use this license for
their documentation can not have the text from those documents used
in a derivative licensed under the 'non-copyleft' CC-BY, let alone
the 'copyleft' version CC-BY-SA.<br>
<br>
If you read the code of other Open Content licenses you find various
condition or constraints that make it impossible to use documents
licensed in this way in derivatives licensed in any other license
type -- essentially resulting in documents being unable to be
developed.<br>
<br>
I will keep my ear to the ground but my general feeling is pick a
license group (e.g. CC vs GFDl vs OCL/OPL), then get everyone to use
that license type. For your project Creative Commons appears to
already be the preferred option.<br>
<br>
In the 'how to contribute' part of the LiveDVD you should emphasis
that only material under a suitable CC license or in the public
domian can be used in creation of derivatives to be distributed with
this product, unless they are covered by the fair use conditions of
most copyright acts. You can point to the CC-to-CC compatability
matrix I pointed you to to inform people of general rules like
"CC-BY-SA can not be used in CC-BY derivatives". All other works
should be cited, referenced or linked to, or at best "quoted" if
small portions of text are needed (as per fair use).<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cheers Simon
Simon Cropper
Principal Consultant
Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 160, Sunshine, VIC
W: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.botanicusaustralia.com.au">www.botanicusaustralia.com.au</a></pre>
<div style="bottom: auto; left: 1064px; right: auto; top: 420px;
display: none;" class="translator-theme-default"
id="translator-floating-panel">
<div title="Click to translate"
id="translator-floating-panel-button"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>