Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] "commercial" use of Att/Share-alike materials

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob AT robmyers.org
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>, Hannes <hannes AT atalante.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] "commercial" use of Att/Share-alike materials
  • Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:14:58 +0100

Quoting Hannes <hannes AT atalante.org>:

I think many people are drawn to the CC licenses because they aren't
forced to read the full legal code to get an understanding of how the
license works. My notion is that people who have not read the legal code
in detail and who know nothing of sync licenses and the like assume that
movies are handled as other collective works. That's why I see a problem
in that movies are an exception, and that it's not made clear in the
summary.

Are movies collective works in law? It would be strange if they were.

Another concern of mine is how the SA can be interpreted. Like you say,
I'm quite sure many believe that SA also refers to any compilations that
the work is used in. I do agree with you that there _should_ be a way to
force all collective works to be SA as well, and I also think that the
SA of today that refers to derivative works should be made more clear in
the license summary.

I think SA's stance on collective works comes from the GNU GPL. That allows Free
software to be distributed alongside non-Free software. This may or may not be
appropriate for various kinds of collective creative works.

(I am not a lawyer, I am not CC).

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page