[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Sun Feb 11 20:44:10 EST 2007
drew Roberts wrote:
> On Saturday 10 February 2007 12:39 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
>>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.
> (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
> 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)?
Yep, I missed that detail. Reciprocity is required. That's a good thing.
Much of what I said is obsoleted by that, sorry. ;-)
Truthfully in most cases where you'd need the ability to relicense to
GPL, you aren't going to have any trouble getting permission to do so.
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-licenses