Whether you intend CC-SA to eventually be compatible with GNU-FDL isn’t exactly clear, but if that isn’t the intent then mentioning them certainly adds confusion.

So, there is no way around this? Or can you use CC BY-SA wiht the
addition of a”Provide Source” clause, which, from a pratical (non-
legal sense) is often necessary to comply meaningfully with the
idea of “Share Alike”

Any further thoughts on this?

The GPL is best described in intent as BY-SA-ProvideSource, a niche not quite supplied by BY-SA.

The GFDL will never be generally compatible with most other licenses because of the "Encumbered with Any Author’s Pet Writings" clause, also known as "Invariant Sections". Wikipedia shouldn’t be using it, and neither should anyone else. 😛

Tables Turned would like to give our users the option of incorporating these agreements. What a great idea.

We’re currently assembling license agreements that allow copyright holders to have their music played on podcasts. IAn "allow remix?" option would be a great service to offer record labels.

Who should we contact?

This would disqualify the FDL (invariant sections, sections that must be removed)

Steve B Writes:

"GNU-FDL provided there are no cover-texts or invariant sections (which would be considered restrictions that would violate our new clause because they do not protect the right to edit). "

Rob Myers Writes:

and BBC-CA (noncommercial, locked to the UK).

Yes, but I am only talking about licenses that SHOULD be compatible. GPL, FDL, Art-Libre, and BY-SA all support the exact same rights given to the licensee. They are in the same spirit of cooporation. However, they are NOT actually compatible, because BY-SA says you MUST USE BY-SA, and because other licenses say similar things.

Rob Myers says:

"But driving derivatives of BY-SA work towards minor licenses won’t help reduce the fragmentation of the commons. Quit the opposite.

The creators who have chosen the values of free culture don’t want a world where their creativity can’t be used consistent with their values."

I wholeheartedly agree with this. But remember, we aren’t talking about changing what the artist wants to be done with it. No one suggested mixing BY-SA with BY-NC or BBC-NC, or mixing licenses that are in no way consistent with the artist’s original intent. However, the "FREE" licenses like those as above, all share the same basic ideas, and the artist who licenses something as one of them believes in copyleft remixing and in attribution.

However, the problem is that even though something under the GPL and BY-SA are technically released under the same rules by INTENT, various ideosyncracies make them not TECHNICALLY compatible, even though it is obvious they are supposed to mean the same thing. For example, as I suggested above, the GPL and FDL have various restrictions that are designed to ensure the right to make derivative works, like sharing source or transparent formats, that BY-SA does not have. MY suggestion is designed to rectify this by making it legal to use ANOTHER license provided that it only has restrictions on attribution and sharing alike, and that any additional restrictions only serve to protect those rights.

Rob Myers says

So don’t take their work and place it under licenses that can be used ignore or subvert their intent.

Exactly. As a matter of fact, if it is discovered that the legal wording of the license DOES subvert their intent (by not actually allowing derivative works with open-source or other free-culture works), then the legal wording should be CHANGED.

Then if you want to mix works under two different licenses you could have a license compiler automatically solve the constraint problem to produce a new license that fulfills the constraints of the parent license (not so different from what the C++ compiler does with multiple inheritance).

It might even be possible to write a reverse-compiler to convert this license back into legal code and perhaps human-readable form.

Aside: Why aren’t there human readable forms in multiple languages in your diagrams?

References:

* Contraint Programming

http://kti.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~bartak/constraints/

<i>basically this modification changes CC-BY-SA so that it is compatible with any license that also guarantees Attribution And Share-Alike provided there are no additional restrictions</i>

This would disqualify the FDL (invariant sections, sections that must be removed) and BBC-CA (noncommercial, locked to the UK). Art Libre might be OK. But driving derivatives of BY-SA work towards minor licenses won’t help reduce the fragmentation of the commons. Quit the opposite.

Lessig writes:

<i>The creators who have chosen the values of free culture don’t want a world where their creativity can’t be used consistent with their values.</i>

So don’t take their work and place it under licenses that can be used ignore or subvert their intent.

As I interpret it, CC-BY-SA 2.5 Section 4.b allows works to be relicensed rectroactively, simliar to the "or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation" clause often used in GNU GPL dedications.

What I would do is this: in the next version of CC-BY-SA, insert a sentence that refers to the freedoms in section 3 as the terms for an unknown license. Perhaps I could explain that better if I just did it myself. I would take some of section 4.b out and make it a section all by itself, as follows:

"4.b: You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Derivative Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Derivative Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Derivative Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License." Then I would change the beginning of section 4.b (now it would be 4.c) to read as follows:

" 4.c) You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License,a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan), or another license that grants the licensee of said license the same rights as underlined in section 3 of this License, with no additional restrictions beyond those necessary to enforce section 4.b of this License, with the interpretation on this matter to fall to the Licensor of this Work. You must include a copy of…<continue current section 4.b text minus the text in the new section referenced above>

Anyway, that is my idea. Even though IANAL, and there is no doubt that this may need revision, I think that this might be sufficient to work with at least SOME of these problems,by making the work automatically compatible with any GPL-compatible copyleft license, and even the GNU-FDL provided there are no cover-texts or invariant sections (which would be considered restrictions that would violate our new clause because they do not protect the right to edit).

However,the new version would be compatible with the GPL’s must-share-source restriction (and other source-sharing license restrictions in other GPL-compatible copyleft licenses) because this restriction is clearly necessary to protect the right to edit a work as defined in our new section 4.b. It would not take a leap of judgement to see that compiling source code (or any other media that could be compiled in some sense) to a binary-only executable or another restrictive format in the sense of the GPL’s "binaries" terminology or the FDL’s "Opaque" terminology, would be "technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement."

If I am difficult to understand above, basically this modification changes CC-BY-SA so that it is compatible with any license that also guarantees Attribution And Share-Alike provided there are no additional restrictions (like adding non-commercial only or something) UNLESS the restriction serves to PROTECT Attribution and ShareAlike (like requiring source code be distributed also, like putting notice of changed versions, etc). I have a feeling that this would be very beneficial and help the Free Culture movement by linking a very large number of free-culture licenses through BY-SA. (like GPL, Art-Libre, GPL-compatible, etc.) I just came up with this though, so what does anyone else think?