From Creative Commons
Jump to: navigation, search

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 -- 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?


the preamble:

and the license deed:

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

Highly unlikely, as explained in --Mike Linksvayer 01:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)