zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Jan 22 10:14:46 EST 2012
On Sunday 22 January 2012 09:40:27 Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:25 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > So, I put photos out there under BY-SA, you use them in a book and keep
> > your copyright on the book ARR. You are not "sharing alike" now are you.
> > The license is failing me.
> I agree with this. The problem seems to be "except that a work that
> constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the
> purpose of this License" and "A work that constitutes a Collection
> will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the
> purposes of this License."
> Why is that there? What's the purpose of it? Would there be any
> harmful effects in taking it out?
> In general I don't understand why CC-BY-SA has to be so complicated.
> The concept is so simple. You may reproduce, distribute, and/or
> publicly display/perform the work, so long as you attribute the
> authors. You may circumvent any technological measure or measures
> which effectively control access to this work without restriction.
One problem here is that you do not necessarily have the right to give someone
the right to break someone else's technological measures. Unlike the GPL
where the code is the technological measure.
> You may prepare a derivative work, so long as you attribute the
> authors and license the derivative work to all third parties under the
> terms of this license. (That's how the CC-BY-SA-US version should be,
all the best,
More information about the cc-community