Talk:4.0/ShareAlike

Does it make sense to discuss "ShareAlike" generically?

Why not?

e.g. CC-BY-SA is conceptually very different from CC-BY-NC-SA.

CC-BY-SA is pro-freedom for society.

CC-BY-NC-SA is pro-choice on behalf of authors - including the choice to impose restrictions on readers.

- Kt 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please add this to http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial -- it is a rationale for retiring, rebranding, or otherwise clearly demarcating BY-NC-SA as not an equivalent level of sharing as BY-SA. --Mike Linksvayer 01:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How about reinstating ShareAlike (1.0 to 4.0)?

Of all the licenses CC has ever produced, the Share-Alike license (1.0) is closest to (a suggested) Libre Puro License.

Some of the rationale for the Libre Puro License might help with this discussion (on ShareAlike 4.0).

Is there room to consider formalisation of something as pro-freedom as this?

See:

http://wikieducator.org/Libre_Puro_License

the preamble:

http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License#Preamble_for_the_Libre_Puro_License

and the license deed:

http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License_Draft_Creative_Commons_Deed

Thanks :-) - Kt 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Highly unlikely, as explained in http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006430.html --Mike Linksvayer 01:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)