[cc-community] An easy way to notify licensors about new license versions

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Dec 10 09:27:34 EST 2007


On Monday 10 December 2007 09:26:23 Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > I may indeed be being dense, but I don't see it as that easy yet. I would
> > like to have it explained to me step by step if it really is that easy.
>
> Okay...
>
> The only reason you know that a given license applies to the work in
> question is because there's a license grant statement (which is
> obviously not part of the license text -- but it's not a statement of
> conditions outside of the text, it's a statement of what license applies).
>
> The grant statement also determines which VERSION of that license
> applies, and there is nothing to prevent it from granting several
> licenses (or several versions) independently -- UNLESS one of the
> licenses represents a promise of *exclusivity* (which none of the CC
> licenses do).
>
> > With dual licenses, I see it as easy because I would point to the other
> > license and say I am not using this one at all.
>
> Which also works here. If you decide to use the work under the later
> license, you aren't using the older one at all.
>
> > However, if I am trying to use this one with modifications that are not
> > mutually agreed upon and in writing, then I would think that "This
> > License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect
> > to the Work licensed here." might kick in and prevent that.
>
> Yes, that's true. But that's not what's happening with an "or any later
> version" clauses. You're not adding conditions or removing them from the
> license. You are offering multiple licensing options in the license grant.
>
> It's exactly as if I were to say (and this is common on Wikipedia, BTW),
> "this work is available for use under the terms of the GFDL version 1,
> CC-By-SA v1.0, CC-By-SA v2.0, CC-By-SA v2.5, or CC-By-SA 3.0, at your
> option".
>
> Each time you use the work, you may choose exactly one license to
> follow. You are then bound by the terms of that license, and no external
> statements (*that's* the effect of the "entire agreement" language).
>
> The only difference is that, by not using explicit version numbers, the
> "or any later version" clause can include versions of licenses that
> haven't been written yet (this is of course, also the reason why it may
> not always be a wise choice -- it depends on how much you trust the
> license steward).
>
> > I couldn't say I am not using this license but another one. Or what?
> > Plus, in the case of SA licenses, wouldn't modifications make mixing
> > works with mods and no mods or different mods not possible?
>
> The SA licenses include the "or any later version" for derivatives IN
> the license, so this problem doesn't arise.
>
> There are no "mods" in the case we are discussing. Once you choose a
> license, you are limited to that license's terms (of course in practice,
> you can always change which license you say you were using it under
> after the fact -- so long as everything you've done (along that
> particular derivation chain) can be covered by one and only one of the
> licenses).
>
> Details of the license grant do not propagate through to derivatives. So
>  if I give you both GFDL and CC-By-SA licenses on a work and you combine
> it with GFDL work, the result must be GFDL (no CC-By-SA at all), and you
> are clearly using it under GFDL. OTOH, if you combine it with CC-By-SA
> work, the opposite situation applies.
>
> You can't keep the dual licensing unless everything you use it with is
> ALSO dual-licensed (or unless the licenses are altered to allow
> conversion from one to the other, in which case the dual licensing
> wasn't really necessary in the first place).
>
> > I am happy to be wrong here, I would just like to understand things
> > better if so.
>
> I think you are misunderstanding the scope of what is being done here. I
> can't make any conditional statements in the grant statement, I can only
> offer licenses. Once you choose one, you're limited to the terms of that
> license.
>
> It is important to realize that you can use the same work under
> different licenses if you use them in completely unrelated ways. So, I
> can take a GFDL+BySA work "A" and combine it with a GFDL work "B" to
> make a GFDL work "C" and at the same time combine it with a BySA work
> "D" to make a BySA work "E" -- but I can't then combine "C" and "E" into
> another work (not unless something is done to allow conversion between
> GFDL and BySA licenses).

I thought I might have been doing a brain warp even though I thought I wasn't 
so I went back and searched the thread:

"> >                       Original Work             Derivatives
> > CC-By-SA (2.0+)       NO                        YES
> > GPL(2+) by itself     NO                        NO
> > GPL(2+) w/statement   YES                       YES
>
> You of course left off the last option:
>
> CC-By-SA w/statement    YES                       YES
>
> It might be nice if there were a way to specify this in the
> license-notification generator on creativecommons.org, as well as in the
> machine-readable code.

How would such a statement interact with the language of 8.e.?"

That is what I am on about.

CC BY-SA w/statement.

and.... a light goes on FINALLY! thanks. I was about to come back again for 
more clarification before the light went on...

Perhaps any modifying type statements would not work, but one which simply 
allows for the use of any later version is not like that. It really is just 
multiple licensing. How could I be so dense on that one for so long? That is 
a bit scary. Sorry for putting you all through that, but thank you for your 
patience and explanations.

Duh! Slaps head.

>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew


More information about the cc-community mailing list