Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License Compatibility

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: M Featherston <opensourcepro AT gmail.com>
  • To: "rob AT robmyers.org" <rob AT robmyers.org>
  • Cc: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License Compatibility
  • Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:12:24 -0400

Thanks for the info.
 
Since there is an issue with compatibility between versions 1.0 and 2.5, would it make sense to dual license content to help avoid this issue?
 
Currently, I am looking into licensing a lot of photos I have taken, but want to maximize compatibility of photos for use with as wide a range of Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Licenses as possible (ie: versions).
 
Thanks!
 
Mitch

 
On 10/4/05, rob AT robmyers.org <rob AT robmyers.org> wrote:
I am Not A Lawyer, I am Not CC.

Quoting M Featherston < opensourcepro AT gmail.com>:

> if I take a photo that was licensed under version 1.0 of the
> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License, and then take a photo licensed
> under the version 2.5 license, would there be legal or other issues?

1.0 doesn't have an "upgrade clause" so as far as I know you wouldn't
be able to
use the 1.0 work under the 2.5 license. So there's a compatibility problem.

> Also,
> using my example of version 1.0 and version 2.5 being combined, would the
> derivative I create be automatically licensed under a 2.5 license?

You couldn't create such a derivative, so it couldn't be 2.5.

2.0 does have an upgrade clause, so you could mix 2.0 and 2.5 work and release
the results 2.5 .

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page