Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - [gnu.org #238740] Derivatives of dual-licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GFDL works

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Turner via RT" <licensing AT fsf.org>
  • To: evan AT wikitravel.org
  • Cc: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [gnu.org #238740] Derivatives of dual-licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GFDL works
  • Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 18:38:11 -0400

> [evan AT wikitravel.org - Wed May 04 22:11:04 2005]:
>
> On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 18:16 -0400, Dave Turner via RT wrote:
>
> > > 1) Does "precisely this License" in the GFDL mean "only this
> > > license,to the exclusion of all others"?
> >
> > This question is so imprecisely stated that I don't want to answer
> > it as-written for fear of ending up being misunderstood later
>
> Really? I thought it was a pretty straightforward question. Are you
> sure you can't make some sort of effort to answer? Could you rephrase
> the question to be more clear, and then answer that question?

OK, I'll do that:

1a) Does "precisely this License" mean that you can't dual-license?

No.

1b) Does "precisely this License" mean that you can't add restrictions?

Yes.

> Anyways, making a derivative work available under an identical license
> isn't a _permission_ granted by a copyleft license; it's a
> _requirement_ that licensees have to meet in order to exercise other
> permissions. The question, in dual licensing derivative works, isn't
> whether permission is granted, but whether requirements are met.

You may not create or distribute derivative works without permission.
Licenses grant permissions. It's a bit odd to describe this as a
requirement, but I don't think it matters either way.

> I'm going to take your response to mean either that a) the GFDL is
> like License X, so a GFDL/Attribution-ShareAlike dual license is more
> like case 3 than case 2, or b) my understanding of case 2 above is
> somehow flawed.

Actually, I think this is like case 1, but as I said, I won't speak for
CC here.

I'm still not convinced of the possibility of licenses like U for the
reasons I specify in my other message (how would you enforce one?).

--
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page