[cc-community] SA but no BY?

Terry Hancock hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Sun Nov 18 18:56:31 EST 2007


B. Rad wrote:
> Thank you for your reply. I found
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ and it does say not to use it as
> it's retired. I can't find the replacement for it though. Every new one
> requires attribution. What's weird is the 1.0 licenses that *do* have an
> appropriate replacement (e.g. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/)
> aren't retired (or at least the page doesn't say so). So, I guess my
> question is why. Why is their no CC SA 3.0? The "retired" licenses are still
> legally binding and aren't going anywhere, so why does it tell me not to use
> it? What if I do anyway since there's no new version?

SA without BY doesn't really make a whole lot of sense -- who's going to
enforce the SA part? There has to be a copyright owner to do that, and
without requiring attribution, it's very hard to keep track. So, it
really isn't very practical. You might as well just commit the work to
hte public domain (then you have neither BY nor SA requirements).

If there's something particular about the form of the CC "BY" clause
that you don't like, then you'd probably be better off using one of the
competing licenses like the "Free Art License", etc.

Cheers,
Terry


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com



More information about the cc-community mailing list