evan at wikitravel.org
Thu May 27 17:01:31 EDT 2004
>>>>> "GL" == Greg London <email at greglondon.com> writes:
GL> Alice creates a song, licenses it CC-NC, and forgoes any
GL> attribution requirements. Bob mixes Alice's song into his own
GL> song, license his song CC-NC, and wants attribution.
Me> ITYM he licenses it by-nc, at that point. Or perhaps that's
Me> not what you mean. Do you really mean that he licenses it nc
Me> 1.0, and simply _requests_ attribution?
GL> I meant BY-NC, I guess, but I figured that that since "BY" is
GL> now in all the 2.0 licenses, you don't have to list it in the
GL> acronym, alphabet soup, list.
OK, I got confused. Because Alice licensed it "CC-NC", and she doesn't
want attribution, I assumed you meant nc 1.0.
(I think it might be clearer, when talking about whether Creative
Commons should provide 2.0 licenses without the Attribution
requirement, to leave in the "by-" part, at least for now, and perhaps
to also make sure to use a version number.)
So I think what you're saying is that Alice licensed it by-nc 2.0, she
waived the Attribution requirement _somehow_ (although the mechanics
of this still aren't clear to me). I think, but I don't know, that you
also meant that she didn't waive the requirement for a copyright
notice; that is, she used a copyright notice for her song somehow.
I guess my main point is that the Attribution section is the only
place in the Creative Commons licenses where you're required to keep
the copyright notice. If there's no Attribution section (as with nc
1.0, nd 1.0, sa 1.0, nc-sa 1.0, et. al.), there's no requirement to
keep copyright notices.
Maybe a way to change this is to separate the requirement for
copyright notices from the requirement for Attribution for the
proposed sa 2.0, nc 2.0, nd 2.0, etc.
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://wikitravel.org/en/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide
More information about the cc-licenses