Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Javier Candeira <javier AT candeira.com>
  • To: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • Cc: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images
  • Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:18:35 +1100

drew Roberts wrote:
>> those rights) is solving the wrong problem. The more we lower the bar for
>> "derivativeness" or "related works" or whatever the legal term, the more we
>> strenghten copyright, and with it the grasp of the copyright cartel over
>> culture.
>
> I think you misunderstand my point then. We do not need to redefine what a
> derivative is, we just need to state that copylefted works of the BY-SA
> variety cannot be used even in mere aggregation with non-copylefted works.
> One work would not be deemed a derivative of another, the license would
> simply forbid using a BY-SA work alongside non-copyleft works.

I did misunderstand your point, and thanks for clarifying it. I now think
what you want is a intermediate license between by-sa and by-nc-sa, maybe
one with terms similar to the "no advertising use" for music in the sampling
licenses. I am right?

> So, again I ask, do we need both variations of this copyleft license? Not
> that
> I want yet another license mind you.

Erm, or maybe you don't want an intermediate license, but I think I got your
point.

>> As to treating different types of thing alike, computer programs and
>> literary texts are not treated alike in copyright law, nor are theatrical
>> works and sculptures, why should photographs and music be treated alike?
>> Consistence is an overrated virtue.
>
> Well then, they can also be treated differently in the CC licenses. That
> might
> make for a nasty license, but you already point out that the underlying law
> is nasty already. (Again, not advocating this, just pointing it out at this
> point.

Good point. Let me say it again. Point.

Regards,

-- javier candeira




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page