Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Wiki license 0.5 beta

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Evan Prodromou <evan.prodromou AT gmail.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Wiki license 0.5 beta
  • Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:16:14 -0500

On Mar 28, 2005 6:02 PM, Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> wrote:

Evan Prodromou said:
> Yeah, but it explicitly calls out iCommons licenses separately.

OK, I give up. I just did a side-by-side comparison of
wiki 0.5 and sharealike-attribution-2.0 and
the sections are identical.

They both call out iCommons licenses.

So, I still don't know where the mismatch is.

Yes, they're absolutely identical. Here's the issue that I'm trying to bring up, in a nutshell: derivative works of stuff available under ShareAlike licenses have to be available under a license with the exact same License Elements. The other license can be later versions of the "core" licenses, or iCommons licenses, or whatever, but they have to have the same License Elements.

So you can make a derivative of a work licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0, and that derivative can be licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 5.7, or Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike iCommons Russia 8.9b. They just have to be Creative Commons (TM) licenses, and they have to have by, nc, and sa as the set of elements.

The problem is that Wiki 0.5 and Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 both have license elements Attribution and ShareAlike. Unlike the previous examples, though, they don't differ in version or language or intended legal regime; they just differ in the details of Attribution. This makes their relationship kind of unique.

As far as I can tell, they are mutually compatible: you can take Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 works and make derivatives under the Wiki 0.5 license, and vice versa. My questions are:
  • Is this correct, or have I missed something?
  • Is this the desired behaviour?
  • If this isn't the desired behaviour, how does one fix it? Could Wiki 0.5's attribution element be renamed "WikiAttribution" or something?
I'm sorry if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.

~Evan



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page