Merging mention of the CC license details doesn't appear to be an option

J.B. Nicholson-Owens jbn at forestfield.org
Sat Jan 17 00:01:16 EST 2004


Rob Myers wrote:
> IANAL, TINLA, and I don't know if this satisfies the license, but it's 
> a start: [...]

Looking at the ShareAlike and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses (the two most
common I've come across for musical works), it seems that section 4b (the
section that requires distributing a copy of the license or its URI) doesn't
change.  So long as each work is licensed to me separately (as they
typically are), I don't think I can avoid saying the name of the work,
performer of the work, and the license for the work separately each time
even though the license detail is repetitive if I include multiple CC
licensed works.

Coalescing or merging the license detail into one place doesn't appear to be
an option in the licenses, although that would make things easier for DJs. I
can see the flip side of this too (if you'll permit the pun which reveals
more about my age)--listeners might not hear the whole show (or might not
hear the end where I would mention the relevant CC license detail).  So they
might hear the works and not know their rights or not know where to learn
about their rights.  I could see how copyright holders would say this is
bad.  There are no guarantees of anything in life, but repetition does breed
learning.

But I don't want this to dampen your enthusiasm; I appreciate the response
and I thank you for continuing the conversation.



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list