Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Dual-licensing under the GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons *-ShareAlike-*

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Branko Collin" <collin AT xs4all.nl>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Dual-licensing under the GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons *-ShareAlike-*
  • Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:08:50 +0100


On 2 Dec 2004, at 22:40, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 03:17 +0100, Wouter Vanden hove wrote:
>
> > When creating a derivative work of a dual-licensed work, you need to
> > pick a license, say GFDL.
> >
> > Then you have a derivative work, *only* distributable under GFDL.
> > The same for BY-SA.
> >
> > But suppose you create two **identical** derivative works, one under
> > GFDL and one under BY-SA. Then again, downstream users can pick
> > either one of them to create a derivative work, if they know both
> > versions exist.
>
> So, you're saying that the way around the exclusivity of the GFDL and
> the by-sa is to make two "different" derivative works, each under a
> different license, but bitwise identical? And perhaps even occupying
> the same virtual/real space? Yet somehow not "the same" derivative
> work?

Perhaps in the analog world you would be right, but in the digital
arena it makes hardly sense to keep two copies of the exact same data
(unless you are looking for redundancy, to protect those data).

Yet even if I were to print a paper book, that had two licenses
attached to it, I think you could still argue that you should treat
that book as two distinct works. After all, it is not the paper and
the binding and the ink that constitute the work.

--
branko collin
collin AT xs4all.nl




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page