ml at creativecommons.org
Mon Dec 19 19:06:50 EST 2011
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> 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.
I'll try to cover this in a separate thread as we get to discussing
more specific proposals, but the basic rationale for keeping BY-NC and
dropping BY-NC-ND and BY-NC-SA would be:
* As Rob Myers has alluded to most recently, BY-NC-SA looks like
copyleft but isn't
contributing to a commons
* Dropping both would simplify the suite in a way that other was of
slicing things wouldn't -- no "three element" licenses would remain,
facilitating new interfaces and explanations that can really focus on
the choice among NC, ND, and SA (or of course plain CC BY).
This is just a fairly obvious simplification that has been suggested
by a number of times over the years (possibly only in offline
conversation; I don't recall any public threads, and they'd be hard to
search for). I personally don't favor it:
* I'd rather more clearly demarcate the fully open and not so
licenses; above wouldn't
* BY-NC-SA is still the 2nd most popular license, so even though I
think it is usually not the best choice, fully dropping it would not
be exactly cool; again I'd prefer to just demarcate it as not fully
open, moreso than has been done thus far
>>> 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.
I'm not entirely sure I'm following this, but I'm guessing there are
two cases. I'll just use BY-NC and BY-SA as the example licenses, but
other obvious ones could be subbed in.
(1) You're releasing a new work under BY-SA, and in this work adapt a
work from someone else under BY-NC (not relying on fair use or other
exceptions). Just maybe you can offer the new work under BY-SA, and
not distribute, etc the work for commercial purposes yourself (ie
comply with BY-NC; note this license does not require distributing
adaptations under any particular license). But your offer of BY-SA is
useless downstream, as it would be very difficult for downstream users
to comply with both, and you'd be seeming to offer rights which aren't
yours to offer. Thus
says not to do this.
(2) You're adapting someone else's work under BY-SA and want to
incorporate BY-NC work. This you even more clearly can't do, as if you
distribute, perform, etc the resulting adaptation, you're required to
do so under BY-SA, and you don't have the rights needed to offer the
whole work under BY-SA (due to the BY-NC work).
is another short treatment outside the FAQ and with more generality.
More information about the cc-community