Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Trust and merge [was: Mapping of license restrictions (CC -GFDL compatibility)]

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Trust and merge [was: Mapping of license restrictions (CC -GFDL compatibility)]
  • Date: 28 Nov 2005 07:43:35 +0900

Rob Myers wrote:
>On 26 Nov 2005, at 02:37, j lipszyc wrote:
>
>> I don't understand that. I agree that changes we make in 3.0 would
>> make
>> also previously relased works GFDL compatible, but why you think
>> this is
>> not legally possible?
>
>BY-SA clause 4b states:
>
>"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
>digitally perform a Derivative Work [...] under the terms of [...] a
>later version of this License with the same License Elements as this
>License, [...]"
>
>So any 2.0 or 2.5 or work may be included in a 3.0-licensed
>derivative. But the 2.0 and 2.5 licenses do not include the author's
>permission to re-license the work either as FDL or under a license
>that allows FDL re-licensing.
>
>Therefore BY-SA 3.0 cannot include FDL cross-licensing.

I can argue this is not the case.

What 2.0 and 2.5 said was that "derivative work could be
licensed under 3.0, and 3.0 may include further ways to
switching to different licenses through creating a
derivative."

Creating a derivative of 2.0'd Work and releasing it
under FDL is not something 2.0 permits to a licensee.

Creating a derivative of 2.0'd Work and releasing it
under yet-to-be-published 3.0 is something 2.0 permits
to a licensee.

Creating a derivative of that particular 3.0'd derivative
and releasing it under whichever license that is okayed
in 3.0, is something 2.0 permits to a licensee.


Best Regards,

Tomos




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page