[cc-community] Not sure does cc apply to a copy or 'original' work
Fred Benenson
fred.benenson at gmail.com
Sat May 31 18:48:01 EDT 2008
Yes, Mike put it better than I did. Thanksz
F
On May 31, 2008, at 6:37 PM, "Mike Linksvayer"
<ml at creativecommons.org> 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).
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
More information about the cc-community
mailing list