2.0 to 2.5 Upgrade Process
zovirl1_list at sbcglobal.net
Fri Jun 10 17:37:58 EDT 2005
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 13:51, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >> I've seen some people propose using langauge similar to that suggested
> >> for
> >> GPL licensing, so for BY_SA that would be something like:
> >> "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike
> >> License; either version 2.5 of the License, or (at your option) any
> >> later
> >> version."
> >> I don't know whether this works or not, though. I am not a lawyer.
> > Unless I am mistaken, it would not work as the license claims to be the
> > entire
> > agreement.
> I haven't been following this thread, so maybe I missed something, but 2.0
> and greater SA licenses include the language Rob proposes in the license:
> "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
> digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License,
> a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this
> License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same
> License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)."
Doesn't this worry anyone? It seems like it introduces a risk that
these other licenses might give away more rights than authors are
More information about the cc-licenses