Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Branko Collin" <collin AT xs4all.nl>]

On 8 Mar 2005, at 18:44, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 01:42:02PM -0500, Greg London wrote:
> 
> > 4.b says you may not exercise the rights granted in 3.b (create a
> > derivative work) if it intended for commercial use.
> 
> It says "primarily intended." Note that it does not preclude
> commercial use per se, it simply says you can't excercise the rights
> with a primary intent of using it that way. *shrug*
> 
> If I use a BY-NC work, release the derivative as BY (without "intent"
> to make money), then I'm technically free to do so. Then what might
> happen? Someone downstream to my license might legitimately
> commercialize something (with intent to make money), and still be in
> compliance with the license that they have.
> 
> This isn't meant to rekindle the (very lame) debate about liability
> for that sort of thing. Rather, the whole point here is that, without
> the requirement to release downstream works under a similar license,
> all sorts of weirdness ensues.

I have done a very weird thing (for me) and actually read the license 
concerned (see <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/2.0/legalcode>). Now I may not have understood a single word of it 
(IANAL), but I have a hard time finding anything that suggests 
derivative works are not bound by this license. Could you point out 
the part of the license that somehow frees derivatives of the 
license?

-- 
branko collin
collin AT xs4all.nl