[cc-community] Freely licensed content question(s)
Terry Hancock
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Wed Oct 24 17:14:38 EDT 2007
Rob Myers wrote:
> If the original works are dual licensed then I believe that the
> derivative can be as well. I don't believe that it *has* to be dual
> licensed, though, so the derivative can be forked under a single license.
Yeah, that's the whole point of dual-licensing. It allows for situations
where you want there to be SOME copyleft, but you're not too particular
about which. With a dual license, you let your work be reused in two
license communities.
It's imperfect, because once it goes to one or the other, the
flexibility is lost.
> If the works in a photographic-illustration-to-an-article scenario are
> dual licensed and the result is also dual licensed this might lead to a
> Schrodinger-ish situation where the FDL works are combined to make a
> derivative but the BY-SA works aren't, all at the same time. :-)
Heh. Mind-bending. But it sounds accurate to me.
Of course, the interesting thing here is that this isn't so much a
matter of differences in the license as in the intent of the
license-provider. So, until there is actually a court case on this
subject, both licenses remain somewhat ambiguous on this point (right?).
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-community
mailing list