[cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?")

wiki_tomos wiki_tomos at inter7.jp
Thu Jan 5 20:03:48 EST 2006


After reading Terry's, Rob's & Greg's comments, I came to notice 
the following interpretation - is that something that you would all 
agree, perhaps? 

1. A derivative work of a CC-BY-SA 2.0'd work could be entirely under 
CC-BY-SA 2.5. "Entirely" means that the original work's creative 
expression inhereted in the derivative is also now usable by the 
terms of 2.5. 

2. The restriction on how a licensee can release a derivaitive 
work is actually a part restriction but part a granting of right 
to relicense upon the creation of a derivaitive work. 

3. CC-BY is quite different. It does not have the equivalent restriction. 
Therefore, its derivative cannot be relisensed, either. The licensee 
who creates a derivative can license only the part they created. 

If this is the case, combined with the proposed change to make 
CC-BY-SA one way compatible (portable) to GFDL, even the works 
released originally by SA 2.0 could be relisensed to GFDL, making 
it usable by GFDL terms alone (as opposed to two license requirements 
needing to be fulfilled). 

Perhaps I took the word "restriction" too literally. Though 
I think it is still not a very strong reason to change an interpretation, 
it makes a lot of sense to think that the restriction is meant to 
allow licensees to upgrade the license of SA'd works. 

Again thank you for responding to my post. 


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list