Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Is something like "version 3.0 or any later version" allowed?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Is something like "version 3.0 or any later version" allowed?
  • Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:02:33 -0700

Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
On 8/27/07, Evan Prodromou <evan AT prodromou.name> wrote:
You also can't relicense a work under a new version of the license without
the contributor's permission. It's a big hassle for wiki adminstrators or
other content distributors to keep track of what license each page, image, or
piece of music is available under. If you want to build a whole licensing
framework for your software (this piece is under this version of this
license, this one was available under this version but now it's available
under that version, blah blah blah), you can, but it's a huge amount of
effort that's probably better spent building functionality people actually
need.

Wise, very wise words. That's why I rather know if there's an
alternative to that right at start and not when it's too late to go
back.

If someone's given the "or any later version" permission, it's possible to
just move the whole site forward at once, rather than waiting for derivative-version
requirements to kick in.

Site and our wiki will be updated today to reflect that.

I assume you're talking about http://spreadopenmedia.org/ and ... I can't find a wiki other than a page on the xiph wiki.

You should add "license" to the list of rel values on the license link.

I still have
no idea how to "hack" the RDF part to state current and later versions
of the license. The RDF design is very monolithic and never took that
into account, and I'm concerned of leaving it as it is.

You're not using the crappy embedded RDF/XML in comments, so this is not a concern. Not that RDF is monolithic or anything.

Ivo, I've greatly regretted not using the "or any later version" language on
Wikitravel, and I use it now on all other CC-licensed sites I have. I strongly
recommend it to you and anyone else who's managing a large collection of open media
with a single license.

This is presumably something that would go into a site's ToS or other agreement, as it is not facilitated directly by the CC licenses (for non-derivative works). I have no idea how this should actually be implemented (and IANAL, so any idea I did have would be bogus), but it is an interesting question.

Mike




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page