Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?")

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob AT robmyers.org
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?")
  • Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:54:18 +0000

Quoting wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>:

If this is the case, combined with the proposed change to make
CC-BY-SA one way compatible (portable) to GFDL, even the works
released originally by SA 2.0 could be relisensed to GFDL, making
it usable by GFDL terms alone (as opposed to two license requirements
needing to be fulfilled).

I think that the entire 2.0 work could ultimately end up in a GFDL work, yes.

Here's how:

Alice licenses her poem under BY-SA 2.0.
Bob adds extra material to the beginning and end of the poem, and releases this
derivative work under BY-SA 3.0.
Carol adds even more material to the beginning and end of the poem and
relicenses the derivative of Bob's derivative under the FDL.

It is important to note that in LawyerVision (tm), the original work hasn't been
relicensed, just a derivative work that happens to contain the material of the
original work. (I think. IANAL.)

What you could not do is relicense Alice's poem under GFDL without making a
derivative in some way. But IMO that becomes irrelevent if making a derivative
still allows the entire original work to be contained in a relicensed work.

It may be that it is better for some BY-SA work to be incidentally relicensed in
this way than for licensors to not be surprised. Or that such relicening is very
unlikely and the damage of the few cases where it is a problem will be vastly
outweighed by the cases where it is good for the community as a whole. But
these arguments go against CC's emphasis on personal rights and personal
choice.

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page