Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] CCau v3.0 public launch

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Björn Terelius <bjorn.terelius AT gmail.com>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] CCau v3.0 public launch
  • Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:22:27 +0200

Terry Hancock wrote:
Björn Terelius wrote:
The FSF, CC, EFF and the people behind the FAL would appear to
disagree with you. So would most of the copyright cabal on wikipedia
but they are more used to dealing with people who are impossible to
trace and/or dead.
I know the FSF's position, but the CC is not forced to follow FSF
ideology. I, in fact, hesitate to release code under GNU GPL partly
because such a release would imply my trust in all future versions of
GPL.

This is incorrect. The GPL contains no version-upgrade clause (neither
for the original work nor for derivatives -- unlike the CC licenses
which provide for derivatives, but not the original work, to be upgraded).

By convention, most people using GPL place an "or later versions" clause
in the license grant statement which provides for upgrades. It is by no
means required, however, and there are a number of important
GPL-licensed projects (the most prominent being the Linux O/S kernel)
which do NOT provide for automatic upgrades.
My comment was slightly incorrect, but yours is too.

If a program is licensed under GPL (without specifying a version number) then _any_ version of the license may be used. On the other hand if an explicit version number is given then that license is fixed and future versions can not be used.
Please note that there is absolutely NOTHING preventing an author from
using a similar "or later version" clause in the grant of a CC license,
which would have exactly the same effect. Authors who want to allow
their works to be upgraded automatically to later licenses can do so
now, without any changes to the license (only in the statement applying
the license to the work).

It would probably be reasonable for the licensing wizard on the CC
website to ask if you want this, and produce an appropriate license
grant statement. But it's not fundamentally an issue with the license
itself, and I think that's the best way for it to be.
Which is exactly what I suggested.

Regards
Bjorn




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page