Decision: CC-BY / GPL
zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Mar 11 07:53:15 EST 2005
On Friday 11 March 2005 06:43 am, Branko Collin wrote:
> 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
> "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."
Assuming your take on this is correct, the work-around would be to release the
same document twice, once under one license and once under the other.
The downstream could then pick which one to modify, or modify both if that
fits with what they are doing.
I can't imagine that the ' "only" under the terms of that license' could
presume to prohibit the release under completely seperate licenses by the
original author. Otherwise, if I release one of my original works under by-sa
1.0, I could not ever releawse under different terms and that is not the case
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses