[lbo-talk] Idea for new variation on creative commons license - does anyone know a lawyer who would be interested (for free)

[// ravi]

On Sep 27, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Charles Turner wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Gar Lipow wrote:
> 
>> The idea: the license is for use in a particular work I am creating.
>> While I can't transfer to anyone the right to yank bits out of my book
>> it seems to me that I can certainly give away the right to copy the
>> entire book unchanged. That is as long as it is the same book, anyone
>> I give that right to can publish that book unchanged - including
>> everyone  if I choose
>> 
>> Further, I think I can even give rights to create derivative works up
>> to a point. My rights are not limited to one version of the book.
>> So I would say derivative works can be allowed so long as the
>> derivative work is still a version of the same book, with all
>> attributions preserved. I would say the following conditions would
>> create a "safe haven" for someone creating a derivative works:
> 
> Why wouldn't the GNU GPL work?
> 
> <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>
> 
> "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source..."

The GPL has to be massaged a bit to work with non-software… and extra massaging to work with attribution requirements (which Gar needs). Further, any limits on the derivative work would probably not sit well with the GPL either.

Some version of the Creative Commons set of licenses might work better. Gar, have you asked the Creative Commons folks themselves?

	—ravi