zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Dec 15 12:00:55 EST 2011
On Thursday 15 December 2011 11:06:41 Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> > On 15/12/11 14:32, drew Roberts wrote:
> >> 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.
> > http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/license.html
> "Sita Sings the Blues is released under a Creative Commons
> Attribution-Share Alike license."
> "Notwithstanding the foregoing, certain musical works included in the
> soundtrack are subject to different, more restrictive licenses."
> That doesn't explain how you're allowed to do that. Why can't I say
> "This encyclopedia article (derived from a Wikipedia article) is
> released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.
> Notwithstanding the foregoing, certain paragraphs included in the
> article are subject to different, more restrictive licenses."? Or can
This is a good point/question. However, perhaps we need to be careful with
what exactly is going on.
Someone wants to put their own original work under a BY-SA license. A work for
which they have licensed some non-Free (or in general some non-BY-SA
compatible) works that they will include somehow in their work.
Someone takes someone else's BY-SA work and includes some of their own
non-BY-SA compatible licensed works in it.
Are there other possibilities which do not break down to one of these two?
More information about the cc-community