Decision: CC-BY / GPL
Branko Collin
collin at xs4all.nl
Fri Mar 11 06:43:38 EST 2005
On 10 Mar 2005, at 18:51, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> This is the boilerplate I have in mind:
>
> This document is Copyright 2004 its contributors as defined in the
> section titled AUTHORS. This document is released under the terms
> of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or under the terms of the
> Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), at the option of
> any part receiving it.
> I would love to hear comments. In particular, about the boiler plate
> above, and whether I did it right. The Debian-legal team helped me
> make it, so I expect it should be fine.
"part" --> "party"?
Seems fine to me, but IANAL.
There was some discussion about dual licensing in the past (look at
the archives).
In "Dual-licensing under the GNU Free Documentation License and
Creative Commons *-ShareAlike-*", Evan Prodromou wrote: "The problem:
I believe that it's not possible to dual-license a derivative work of
a work dually licensed under by-sa 1.0 and the GFDL. Here's my
reasoning:"
"My (admittedly inexpert) understanding is that a dual-licensed
derivative work would not meet the requirements of by-sa 1.0, since
it is not licensed "only" under the terms of that license. Similarly,
a dual-licensed derivative work would not meet the requirements of
the GFDL, since it is not licensed under "precisely" that license."
Although strictly speaking you are not dual-licensing it, it seems
like you are forcing any down-stream authors to choose between CC-BY
or GFDL ("under the terms of ... or under the terms of"). Does the
receiving party has a choice to retain both? (I am not a native
speaker of English, and subtleties about when to use "or" and/or when
to use "and" often elude me.)
--
branko collin
collin at xs4all.nl
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list