[cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?")
wiki_tomos at inter7.jp
Thu Jan 5 20:03:48 EST 2006
After reading Terry's, Rob's & Greg's comments, I came to notice
the following interpretation - is that something that you would all
1. A derivative work of a CC-BY-SA 2.0'd work could be entirely under
CC-BY-SA 2.5. "Entirely" means that the original work's creative
expression inhereted in the derivative is also now usable by the
terms of 2.5.
2. The restriction on how a licensee can release a derivaitive
work is actually a part restriction but part a granting of right
to relicense upon the creation of a derivaitive work.
3. CC-BY is quite different. It does not have the equivalent restriction.
Therefore, its derivative cannot be relisensed, either. The licensee
who creates a derivative can license only the part they created.
If this is the case, combined with the proposed change to make
CC-BY-SA one way compatible (portable) to GFDL, even the works
released originally by SA 2.0 could be relisensed to GFDL, making
it usable by GFDL terms alone (as opposed to two license requirements
needing to be fulfilled).
Perhaps I took the word "restriction" too literally. Though
I think it is still not a very strong reason to change an interpretation,
it makes a lot of sense to think that the restriction is meant to
allow licensees to upgrade the license of SA'd works.
Again thank you for responding to my post.
More information about the cc-licenses