[cc-community] NC/ND

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Dec 15 09:32:59 EST 2011

On Thursday 15 December 2011 09:20:53 Anthony wrote:
> 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 :).  

I know, I did say I couldn't answer it...

> 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.

Well for a close example, consider the ARR music in the BY-SA movie/video Sita 
Sings The Blues. It has always puzzled me a bit on how that all works.

You don't really have to try that hard to confuse me in this area though. 
Consider "background" pictures, paintings, sculptures, whatever in BY-SA 
photos or videos.
> 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.

If I get this right, exactly, that is one big difference.
> > 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.

all the best,


More information about the cc-community mailing list