Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Commercial Rights Reserved

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Commercial Rights Reserved
  • Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:50:54 -0500

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Blaise Alleyne <email AT blaise.ca> wrote:
> On 12-12-12 01:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> SA reserves the right of the author to make
>> (or authorize the making of) proprietary derivatives, in exactly the
>> same way NC reserves the right of the original author to make copies
>> for commercial purposes.
>
> That's not actually true, is it? SA requires that derivatives stay under
> the *same* licence, preventing derivate works
> from being licensed *differently*. It reserves the right of the author to
> *change* the licence, right?

If you want to be technically accurate, what it requires is for the
author of the derivative to license the derivative under the same
license.

> That means a derivative work can't be CC BY or CC0 (or GNU GPL, or the
> Artistic License) or, yes, under a non-free
> license. It's not just preventing proprietary reuse, but also preventing
> the addition (GNU GPL -- source requirements)
> or subtraction (CC BY, CC0) of restrictions, whether within libre or not.

A derivative of a CC-BY-NC work can't "be CC-BY" (or CC0, or GPL, or
under the Artistic License) either. A derivative of a CC-BY work
can't be CC0 (or GPL, either, I don't know about Artistic License but
probably not).

What SA adds is that the person making the derivative has to license
the derivative under SA. The fact that the person making the
derivative can't subtract restrictions is part of all the licenses,
explicitly in the sentence "You may not sublicense the Work.".




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page