[cc-licenses] just share alike
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Apr 26 08:00:42 EDT 2007
On Wednesday 25 April 2007 09:55 pm, matt draghi wrote:
> Thanks for the info. Regarding my not wanting to require the stating of
> the license, my reasoning was that since we are to assume that any work we
> find could very well have all the rights reserved, I wouldn't really be
> restricting anyone by not requiring the information of the license. If they
> did not know the license of the artwork, they should assume that the rights
> are all reserved and should believe that with regard to the law they should
> not be copying it in the first place, let alone restricting the copies or
> modifications of their copy. So wouldn't it be up to the copier to either
> try to find out the license somehow or assume that all rights are reserved
> if they can't or don't want to find out the license - in the case where
> there is not a license stated along with the artwork? (All the above is
> referring to having only the share alike restriction with no other
> restrictions present)
There is a guy named Crosbie Fitch over at Digital Productions:
He is trying to come up with a Concise Copyleft:
So far he has come up with:
"You are free to take any liberties you wish with my published work, with but
one constraint: The liberties you take may not be withheld from those to whom
you give my work (or your combined/derivative work), who you must similarly
Would such language work as safe legal language. (Safe for both side of the
deal. - This question for anyone naturally.)
Would something like that work for you?
> Thanks, Matt
all the best,
> >From: "Greg London" <greglondon.1 at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
> ><cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
> >To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
> ><cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
> >Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] just share alike
> >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:01:52 -0400
> >On 4/25/07, matt draghi <mattdraghi at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>Does anyone know if there is a license for share alike, not requiring
> >You can use ShareAlike. And then simply not provide any attribution
> >see paragraph 4.c of this:
> >I'm unclear how on exactly how you would provide your information
> >without making it a requirement. i.e. provide it but specify it is
> >>I have some artwork I want to license as such, and don't want people to
> >>forced to say I made it if they copy or modify a copy.
> >If you don't provide info, they don't have to attribute it.
> >How you provide your info, but waive the attribution requirement, I'm not
> >Just add your own disclaimer on your website, maybe.
> >>I am not even sure I want to force them to say what kind of license it
> >well, they would have to, or no one else would know its share alike
> >and know they can't add more restrictions to the work.
> >>I do however want to restrict people from restricting the copying or
> >>modifying of their copies or modified copies.
> >yep. that would be sharealike.
> >>I have been trying to find such a license and could not find one at
> >>commons. The closest one I found was a GPL kind, that was primarily
> >>for software, but I think also could appy to anything considered a
> >> "work". That one still required stating the license though. Is there any
> >> problem with taking an existing license, removing the title and changing
> >> some of the
> >>words to make it more like what I want? Incase any of this sounds
> >>it is because I have just begun researching this.
> >You can modify a license, you just have to give it a different name.
> >You can't make displaying the license optional though, since downstream
> >users wouldn't know that the work is ShareAlike and can't have other
> >restrictions added.
> >cc-licenses mailing list
> >cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> Dont quit your job Take Classes Online and Earn your Degree in 1 year.
> Start Today!
(da idea man)
More information about the cc-licenses