[cc-licenses] Licence Upgrades

Terry Hancock hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Wed Jan 11 21:32:53 EST 2006


On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:15:24 -0500
Harlan Lieberman-Berg
<sysadmin at tacticalbusinesspartners.com> wrote:
> Well, I am not a lawyer as well, but I believe that the
> language which you have quoted would explicitly DENY the
> rights to upgrade.  After all, it does say (e.g.
> Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan)." Which includes the
> version number...

"e.g." = "exemplis gratis" = "for example"

The language in parentheses does not have any legal force,
it merely clarifies the text before it, which explicitly
allows three options for "sharing alike":

1) You may use the same license.

2) You may use a later version of the same-named license
(hence, CC-By-SA 2.0 allows conversion to CC-By-SA 2.5). I
am sure they got this idea from the GPL's license grant
example.

3) You may use an alternate jurisdictional representation of
the same-named license.  This is unique to the CC licenses,
AFAIK -- most either insist on a legal venue or (like the
GPL) insist on interpretation of the English-language
license, which might be kind of dicey.  I wouldn't be
surprised if GPL3 borrows this multi-jurisdiction license
idea from CC.

The example describes one such possibility: the license may
be converted from CC-By-SA 2.0-en to CC-By-SA 2.0-jp. But
there are obviously many other possibilities that fall
within the allowances.

Allowances 2+3 also means you can use a later version of
an alternate jurisdictional version of the license, by
subsequent redistribution.  Though, admittedly this is
fuzzier.

> > This language, according to many on this list, means
> > that when you  create a Derivative Work, you may choose
> > to upgrade the license to a  later version. 

I agree.

> > Please note, that they are not lawyers as I understand,
> > their opinions not  legal advice, nor are they speaking
> > to represent official opinion of  the Creative Commons. 

All true of me, anyway.  If you want legal advice, hire a
lawyer -- even lawyers have to eat. ;-)

> > Non-SA licenses do not have this type of language, as I
> > remember.  SA 1.0 licenses do not have it, either. 

"Non-SA" licenses wouldn't need it -- since it is a
legal *definition* of "sharing alike".

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com




More information about the cc-licenses mailing list