[cc-community] Are translated versions of CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 España different licenses?

Nathan Kinkade nkinkade at creativecommons.org
Wed Dec 14 14:23:58 EST 2011

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 22:01, jonathon <jonathon.blake at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/12/11 13:58, Johannes Weißl wrote:
>> In other words: If someone says: "My work is licensed under
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/legalcode.ca", is it
>> always correct to just remove the "legalcode.ca" suffix?
> No, because the Creative Commons Foundation has messed up on several
> occasions, In one instance CC-BY-SA (country) and CC-BY-SA-NC (country)
> are compatible licenses, because the wording is identical.
> In a different instance, CC-BY-SA-NC (one country) is incompatible with
> CC-BY-SA-NC (unported);
> Whilst I don't know offhand of any CC-BY-NC-ND incompatibilities, I
> usually ignore that license because it to be an anti-libre EULA.
> jonathon

Even though there are sometimes errors in the legalcode, it should
pretty much always be safe to remove the /legalcode[.xx] from a
license link when the only intention is to link to a particular
license for a particular jurisdiction (or no jurisdiction).  Linking
to the deed should be fine.  For example linking to
/licenses/by/3.0/es/ and linking to /licenses/by/3.0/es/legalcode
should be functionally equivalent in terms of indicating which license
the work is under.  Similarly, removing /legalcode.ca doesn't change
which license the work is under, notwithstanding any typos in that
translation of that particular legalcode.


More information about the cc-community mailing list