[cc-community] Not sure does cc apply to a copy or 'original' work
Terry Hancock
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Sun Jun 1 15:12:24 EDT 2008
drew Roberts wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008 18:19:55 Evan Prodromou 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.
>
> I think what might be the point of the statement is that you can't force a
> person to use the more restrictive license and not the less restrictive
> one. ???
An interesting twist, though, is that the licensing can collapse at each
derivation.
If I use a work licensed under GPL + By-SA + BSD, then use the BSD
license's permission to create an ARR work, derivatives of my work will
have to seek permission from me.
Alternatively, if I make a GPL work, people wanting to create By-SA
derivatives of my work, cannot.
In those case, someone wanting to avail themselves of the original
combination license will have to go back to the version I derived from,
and then, if necessary, recreate any additions I added under their
chosen license.
So, as you can see, the process of derivation allows increased
restrictions to apply.
In order to avoid that, I would have to (voluntarily) choose to license
my derivative under the same terms as the upstream work.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-community
mailing list