miken – No, because those licences also do allow straight copying, as I understand them. It’s hard to see how it could be otherwise, actually, but I though Harry’s point was interesting as a thought experiment.

arboltself – Have fun! I know only enough Spanish to be dangerous, so you can be sure that whatever you come up with, I’ll regard it as a work of genius and be enormously flattered.

joezul – Thanks for stopping by. I always like hearing from people who came to poetry from a technical or scientific background; the two moieties have a lot to learn from each other, in my opinion.

T.S.M. – Thank you very much for taking the time to share your contrarian opinion.

The perverse thing is the attempt to create a legal frame to perpetuate itself virulently forcing anything based upon GPL based code to become GPL. Today these licenses have an affect like making an author lose his rights to the book because he quoted something from another author who made his work public domain.

If an author declares his work to be in the public domain, he signs away all rights. That’s not what we’re talking about here. Also, the nightmare scenario you evoke here is a reductio ad absurdum. Nothing in the CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Licence, or the GNU GPL, prevents licensor and licensee from coming to their own written agreement. Authors wishing to reprint my works in their own, fully copyrighted publications are free to contact me for permission, and I am free to suspend the provisions of this CC licence.