Thanks for taking time to look at this.
Yes, it is very similar in intent to the old "ShareAlike" license which was not updated by Creative Commons on the path from 1.0 to 3.0. Their argument was lack of interest in the SA 1.0 license. A better argument might have been that with any CC license one is free to specify attribution as "anonymous" or "not required" (but one would have to dig deep to discover this in most cases), or that without attribution the licenses are unenforceable.
Regarding the free file format requirement:
- > ... "What if a user down the line saves the resource in a non-free format?"
- No problem: the new derived resource would not be "Libre Puro" and the author would have to drop the "Libre Puro" label.
- "Free file format" may be too strong a statement. "Open file formats" might be sufficient (including e.g. OOXML ??)
- I have thought of dropping the free file format requirement as one would be free to convert the resource into a free/open format and then adapt it, etc. The knowledge resource is "freeable". However, there may be cases where it is not. For example, what if a knowledge resource is available in a proprietary DRM-encumbered format? It might even be illegal to convert it and, in that case, we would not want to be encouraging people to try.
I still believe the license has merit:
- Libre Puro Resources may be mixed into CC-BY-SA and CC-BY repositories such as WE and Connexions]
- The associated freedoms are immediately obvious (as they are with the newer CC icons) including the freedom not to "attribute"
- The simplest license that could possibly work
- It does not criminalise kids (or anyone) for mixing and sharing - decouples abuses from the act of making copies. Other areas of the law or social processes may manage abuses (e.g. academic institutions and peers will not recognise plagiarised theses), while libre technology enables libre knowledge.
- See Best Libre Puro Practices - and comment there too if you have a moment.
I have not "pushed" this license too hard as I often get strong "not yet another license!" reactions. When the time is right, more people will engage in this discussion and either help refine it or convince me that it is not a sound idea (not convinced yet, and there are a few issues which need to be ironed out).
Re: > "Candidly -- I don't [think] licenses are effective tools to regulate intent. ..."