[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too
Mia Garlick
mia at creativecommons.org
Sat Feb 10 12:27:34 EST 2007
On Feb 10, 2007, at 5:11 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
[cut]
>>
>> I would hope that, in the cases where CC decides to post a license as
>> "compatible", that there is a reciprocal statement being made by the
>> parties controlling that other license.
>
> I thought I just read that in the draft Mia posted.
>
>> From Definitions:
>
> (b) "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is
> listed at
> http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that: (i) has
> been approved
> by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this
> License,
> including without limitation because that license contains
> terms that have
> the same purpose, meaning and effect as the License Elements of
> this
> License; and, (ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of
> derivatives of
> works
> made available under that license under this License.
>
> See (ii)? Now presumably (ii) is redundant in the license itself
> except as a
> safeguard? Surely CC will not list it as approved if it does not do
> so. Or is
> CC going to play games with us and put licenses there as approved
> but we
> can't actually use them because they don't meet (ii)?
>
> Actually Mia, does this need to be fixed?
>
> Thinking further, I think it does need fixing. Here is my suggested
> rewording:
>
> (b) "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is
> listed at
> http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been
> approved
> by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this
> License,
> including without limitation because that license contains
> terms that have
> the same purpose, meaning and effect as the License Elements of
> this
> License. Note: Creative Commons will not approve such a license
> unless
> it explicitly permits the relicensing of derivatives of works made
> available under that license under this License.
a license will not be deemed compatible unless it is reciprocal in
recognizing and enabling compatibility. i don't think one can
include a "Note" in a legal definition. would this rephrasing allay
concern?
""Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed
at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses thathas been
approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this
License, including without limitation because that license: (i)
contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect as the
License Elements of this License; and, (ii) explicitly permits the
relicensing of derivatives of works made available under that license
under this License."
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list