Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Alex Schroeder <alex AT gnu.org>]

Evan Prodromou <evan AT bad.dynu.ca> writes:

> So now I'm wondering: am I wrong? Can you indeed make a dual-licensed
> derivative work of a work dual licensed under the both the GFDL and
> by-sa 1.0, and comply with either or both of those sets of requirements?

I think you can make a dual-licensed derivative work of a work dual
licensed under the both the GFDL and by-sa 1.0 using the following
mental construct.  The key now is: How would you "attack" this?  The
only person able to mount such an attack would be the copyright
holder.  What would he say?  You violated his copyright?  You took the
licenses he gave you, produced a derivative, and used the passed the
licenses on.  I think common sense prevails.

On the Emacs Wiki we use the following text:

    This work is licensed to you under version 2 of the GNU General
    Public License. Alternatively, you may choose to receive this work
    under any other license that grants the right to use, copy,
    modify, and/or distribute the work, as long as that license
    imposes the restriction that derivative works have to grant the
    same rights and impose the same restriction. For example, you may
    choose to receive this work under the GNU Free Documentation
    License, the CreativeCommons ShareAlike License, the XEmacs manual
    license, or similar licenses.

We don't have your problem, because we assume that anybody editing the
page is "choosing to receive this work" under the same license (the
entire paragraph).

Alex.
-- 
.O.  http://www.emacswiki.org/alex/
..O  Schroeder's fifth law:
OOO  Never accept more work than you can handle in one night of hacking.