Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
  • Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 23:21:11 +0100

On 25 May 2005, at 23:03, Greg London wrote:

I think the DRM clause is irrelevant to anything
that isn't CC-SA. Anything that is not CC-SA can
add more restrictions to the work, either through
a license or through DRM. six of one, half dozen
of the other.

But you cannot sublicense the *original* work under BY-SA. That is, someone who has a copy of the work (rather than the original author) with this BY-SA license to redistribute cannot sublicense the original unaltered work.

I do accept that it is trivial to derive the work and redistribute that.

From a "rights" point of view, it makes no difference

to me if someone restricts a work via license or via
DRM, the work has been restricted.

True. But by my reading of it the license covers both cases: a downstream user cannot sublicense the original work, and you cannot DRM it either.

But it isn't about "protecting" a work
if the work isn't CC-SA, since it's a
no brainer to relicense.

This is true. But let's consider the work "in distribution" or "in circulation". The CC licenses seem (to my mind) to cover the distribution of and simple display/performance/publishing/ redistribution of the unaltered, original work as a specific case to be considered. If you have a copy of a CC-BY work, the original is relicensed, and you then publish your copy, you may not change the license on or DRM *your* unaltered copy.

I think. IANAL, &c.

I think any derivative work is legally considered to
be an atomic work, rather than an aggregation.
So once you combine multiple works into a single
derivative, you end up with a single work with
a single license, and the license must apply
to the whole work.

Yes, if this is the case it does mean that CC-BY can have nothing to say about DRM on *derived* works.

As it is, I see massive loopholes in the NonCommercial
and I'd like to get clarity on what exactly it means.

As I say, I get the impression that there are moves afoot to provide better education about the licenses, so hopefully NC will get clarified as part of this.

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page