[gnu.org #238740] Derivatives of dual-licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GFDL works

Wouter Vanden hove wouter.vanden.hove at telenet.be
Thu May 5 12:08:02 EDT 2005


Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 10:07:24AM -0400, Greg London wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think this is the root of confusion.
>>A license cannot prohibit the author from making the same
>>work available under a different license.
> 
> 
> If by "author" you mean the original author and licensor, yes, that's
> true.
> 
> If by "author" you mean the creator of a derivative work, you're wrong.
> 
> A licensor has pretty wide berth in making demands on creators of
> derivative works. If the licensor says (through the license), "You may
> only make derivative works under these conditions: A, B, C", you have
> to do A, B, and C if you're going to make derivative works. If you
> don't want to do those things, under copyright law you don't have a
> right to make derivative works.

condiotns A, B,C
do not mean A OR B or C




> 
> Given that the conditions people put on making derivative works range
> from "give me money" to "pet a kitten", I find it hard to believe that
> requiring derivative works to be available under a particular license
> is somehow unreasonable.
> 
> 
>>Copyleft and ShareAlike don't work that way.
> 


> *Sputter* That's _exactly_ how they work! The Licensor, through the
> license, grants licensees the right to make derivative works (among
> other rights), provided that they meet the requirement of licensing
> the derivative work under an identical (or quite similar) license.

Unless, permission is granted to them via another license by the 
original author.



> Unlike other copyleft licenses, the ShareAlike says that the
> derivative work can be distributed _only_ under the terms of that
> license (or a later version, or an equivalent iCommons license).

Unless, permission is granted to them via another license  by the 
original author.



> My read of the GFDL is that it also requires that derivative works _only_
> be available under the GFDL, but I might be wrong on that.

Unless, permission is granted to them via another license by the 
original author.


>>You really have to think of it as two completely separated
>>works, each with their own license.


> Why? 
Because there are 2 licenses to begin with.


That's a false assumption. They aren't two works: it's one work,
> with two optional licenses.

one version under with two licenses =
two versions under each one licenses.


  You can exercise the rights under one
> license if you meet the terms of that license, or you can exercise the
> rights under the other license if you meet the terms of the other
> license.

-->
  You can exercise the rights under one
  license if you meet the terms of that license, **AND** you can 
exercise the rights under the other license if you meet the terms of the 
other license.


  You can exercise the rights under one
 > license if you meet the terms of that license, --> Derivative A

  you can exercise the rights under the other license if you meet the 
terms of the other license. --> Derivative B

Nothing prohibits that A is identical to B.

than you have one derivative A=B, under two licenses.



> I agree that if you make this false assumption
I don't see any false assumption.
I think your logic is flawed.

  you can justify
> ignoring the terms of the licenses that the Licensor has provided. Of
> course, you can imagine all sorts of other things that would justify
> that, too. All of them would also be false.


>>Bob can apply the SAME modiications to Alice's work,
>>once to teh GNU-GPL version, once to the CC-SA version.


> What a crock! There aren't two versions, there's one version.

one version under with two licenses =
two versions under each one licenses.


  There
> aren't two derivatives: there's one derivative.

there are two,
but they are identical,
so in practice there is only one, under two licenses.

  The universe doesn't
> split in two timelines just because Alice allows people to use a work
> under one of two licenses at their option.

Well, according to the Many Worlds Theory ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_Worlds_Theory :)



Evan,
it's not necesaary to talk about derivatives,
just think about distributing the original dual-licensed work by 
third-parties.
According to your own reasoning they always have to remove one license.



wouter
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wouter.vanden.hove.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 294 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20050505/7f9ef399/attachment.vcf 


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list