osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 15 09:20:53 EST 2011
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:37 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 15 December 2011 08:19:49 Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:15 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
>> > Actually, altough it may at first seem counterintuitave, *if* cc is going
>> > to drop one of BY-NC and BY-NC-SA, I think that BY-NC should be dropped
>> > and BY-NC-SA kept.
>> BY-NC is an especially strange license. If, for noncommercial
>> reasons, I included a BY-NC work inside a GPL work, and licensed the
>> derivative as GPL, would I be violating either of the two licenses?
> I am not a lawyer and can't really answer that.
> I would say that if someone took you seriously on your GPL license of the
> derivative and sold copies or did other "commercial" things with it, they
> would be in violation of the original BY-NC license but perhaps I
> misunderstand how the whole thing works.
Probably, although that doesn't quite answer the question :). Though
I suppose it turns it into a question about the GPL, and not a
question about BY-NC.
To make it more appropriate for the list I suppose we could substitute
"CC-BY-SA" for "GPL", though.
In any case, I think the answer is "hopefully CC-BY-SA/GPL doesn't
allow this", though I find it hard to see why it doesn't.
I guess it wasn't that interesting. I was going to ask then what's
the difference between BY-NC and BY-NC-SA, but I guess the difference
is that under BY-NC you can add *your own* additions and don't have to
license *them* under BY-NC.
> Perhaps someone with a better technical/legal understanding can enlighten us.
That would be helpful.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> The GPL doesn't allow additional restrictions such as NC
Are you getting that from "You may not impose any further
restrictions..."? Isn't it someone else imposing the restrictions?
I never really understood this part of copyleft. And I've seen it
abused in the past, where people mix a proprietary work of someone
else with a proprietary work, say that the whole thing is released
under that copyleft license, and claim that they've fulfilled the
terms of the copyleft.
I've certainly seen it with CC-BY-SA and GFDL. I can't think of a
time it has happened with regard to the GPL, though.
More information about the cc-community