distribution of licenses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Mar 7 10:11:51 EST 2005
On Monday 07 March 2005 09:37 am, Greg London wrote:
> drew Roberts said:
> > On Monday 07 March 2005 08:32 am, Greg London wrote:
> >> I'm not attached to whether it is "not required" or
> >> whether it is "forbidden". I think a large project
> >> has to set itself up so that contributions are made
> >> where attribution is waived. But if it is simply
> >> waived, that means that someone else could take the
> >> result of that project while it is still going,
> >> make a minor fork, and put attribution on it with their
> >> name and URL.
> > No, at least in the case I gave, they could not, since it is ShareAlike,
> > they cannot make changes to the license at all. At least if I understand
> > the implications of ShareAlike correctly.
> Maybe I am misunderstanding ShareAlike with regards to
> attribution. Alice creates a work, licensing it ShareAlike.
> She waives her requirement for attribution.
> Bob comes along, takes Alice's work and modifies it.
> He doesn't waive his requirement for attribution,
> and attaches his name and URL to the work.
> Is this not a valid series of events?
You are thinking of things as they exist now under 2.x and not talking about
what I am proposing.
Also, you are dealing with the workings of BY not the workings of SA or at
least with the interaction of BY with SA.
This is because 2.x dropped the option of not choosing BY. Under 2.x you get
BY and then waive the BY requirements. This is why I call for NOBY and
(missing reference to BY)... More options and they work cleaner in my
Also, is anyone on this list actually connected into CC? I am not btw.
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses