Is cc-by a viral license?
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller
sloyment at gmx.net
Sat Nov 1 07:23:49 EST 2003
Hi Tomo, (IANAL TINLA)
On Freitag 31 Oktober 2003 22:03, Watanabe Tomoaki wrote:
> I have a simple question regarding the difference between
> cc-by and cc-by-sa. It seems that when I create a derivative
> work (say, an encyclopedia article) based on someone else's
> cc-by contents (say, a instructional material for school
> teachers), I can release that derivative work (article) under
> any license, as long as I include attribution to the authors
> of the work I used (the instructional material).
> I may release it with fully copyrighted, or I may use other CC
> license, or some other copyleft licence, etc.
Right. However, if you choose another free license, make sure
that it is as least as restrictive about attribution as the
cc-by license. The cc-by-sa will propably be OK, but not the
cc-sa, the GPL or GFDL.
This is much the same as with the BSD license. It is non-viral,
and its only requirement is to retain a warranty disclaimer. The
GPL has such a requirement too, so they are compatible, i.e. you
can combine BSD-licensed code with GPLed code. However, the
*old* BSD license featured an attribution clause which the GPL
didn't. So these licenses were not compatible.
-- - http://220.127.116.11/~sloyment/ - --
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."
More information about the cc-licenses