[cc-community] Not sure does cc apply to a copy or 'original' work

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Jun 1 09:06:58 EDT 2008


On Saturday 31 May 2008 18:37:55 Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 12:54 -0400, Fred Benenson wrote:
> > you can never restrict the rights of a work farther by dual (or tri-?)
> > licensing it, you can only make it more liberal.
> >
> > You'll need to explain and justify this axiom, because it sounds
> > incorrect to me. For example, I could license a work either under the
> > by-sa or the GFDL. It would be hard to say which is more "liberal";
> > they're equivalent in purpose although small details make them
> > incompatible.
>
> Licensing under two equivalently liberal copyleft licenses gives users
> more options than licensing under just one.  The only multi licensing
> case that may not give users more options than mono licensing may be
> when one (or the one) license involved is a permissive license.
>
> In any case, I suspect (I haven't followed closely) Fred's (correct)
> point is that when you're offering more than one license neither
> license adds restrictions to the other, so multi-licensing can only
> give users more options (or strictly speaking, might give them more
> options but can't take options away).

Let's say I licensed a work BY-SA and BY-NC-SA...

The person wanting to make a derivative could choose either depending on what 
they wanted their derivative to be under... That sort of thing can work. May 
or may not be sensible, but it doesn't seem impossible.
>
> Mike

all the best,

drew




More information about the cc-community mailing list