cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
- From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
- To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 & Website Comments
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:09:05 +0000
On 21 Feb 2005, at 18:44, nono2sco wrote:
The reason this seems tricky to me is who exactly the
licensor and licensee are, and the nature of the work.
Get the posters to license the work to the *website* CC-BY-SA-2.0 and there is no ambiguity. The site must then offer the comments CC-BY-SA-2.0 itself, so the rest of the world gets the comments licensed as before.
This also means that posters can't request removal (although it might be good citizenship to allow removal requests, I don't know what the usual position on this is).
- Rob.
OT/PS - Cool, the video for New Order's new single just started playing on MTV 2. :-)
-
No-profit or no-sales option on commercial axis?,
Jesse Roberge, 02/16/2005
- Re: No-profit or no-sales option on commercial axis?, Evan Prodromou, 02/17/2005
-
Re: No-profit or no-sales option on commercial axis?,
mp, 02/18/2005
-
Re: No-profit or no-sales option on commercial axis?,
Branko Collin, 02/18/2005
-
Re: No-profit or no-sales option on commercial axis?,
Greg London, 02/18/2005
-
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 & Website Comments,
nono2sco, 02/21/2005
- Re: Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 & Website Comments, Rob Myers, 02/21/2005
-
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 & Website Comments,
nono2sco, 02/21/2005
-
Re: No-profit or no-sales option on commercial axis?,
Greg London, 02/18/2005
-
Re: No-profit or no-sales option on commercial axis?,
Branko Collin, 02/18/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.