Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Alexander Genaud <alexgenaud AT gmail.com>]

Thank you Daniel,

You have cleared a few things up for me. I was unaware that each
copyright holder has exclusive rights to an entire work (derivative).

> If you and I are both copyright holders
> over a work, and I make changes,
> I have the sole copyright over my
> changes. Period. I can give you
> [examples] where this happens today
> (e.g. Sun's StarOffice, Codeweavers'
> CrossOverOffice, etc.)

Are you referring to (for instance) OpenOffice forking from
StarOffice? As far as I understand, Sun retains the copyright even of
OpenOffice, and it was the GPL, not the copyright per se, that allowed
the fork.

"""Copyright 2002,2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc."""

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to think otherwise), I
may consider a simplified compromise between MIT/zlib/BSD-style. Am I
correct to assume, that the spirit of the letter matters, and that the
verbosity of many licenses is unnecessary.

Alex

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

This work is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this work. Permission is hereby granted, free
of charge, to any being, to deal in the work without restriction,
including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the work,
provided this notice is included in all copies or substantial portions
of the work.



2005/10/10, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>:
> Alexander Genaud wrote:
> > Thanks for your response. I do not believe public domain and a
> > copyright to everyone are quite the same thing.
>
> In practice they are, and "public domain" at least has precedent.
>
>
> > Agreed. However, while I can redistribute a public domain work under
> > my own copyright, I must retain the copyright of a work owned by
> > everyone.
>
> That's only half-true, and doesn't apply to the case you proposed. If
> you and I are both equal copyright holders of a work, I am free to do
> what I want with it and I don't have to put your name down.
>
> > In other words, I believe, no one individual can release
> > changes under closed terms if the recipient is also a copyright
> > holder.
>
> This is not true.
>
> If you and I are both copyright holders over a work, and I make changes,
> I have the sole copyright over my changes. Period. I can give you
> expamples where this happens today (e.g. Sun's StarOffice, Codeweavers'
> CrossOverOffice, etc.)
>
> If what you want is to ensure that changes remain open, you should use a
> license like the GPL or ShareAlike.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
> --
>       /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
>      /\/_/
>     /\/_/   No trees were harmed in the generation of
>     \/_/    this email. However, a significant number
>     /       of electros were severely inconvenienced.
>
>
>


--
http://cph.blogsome.com
--
CCC7 D19D D107 F079 2F3D BF97 8443 DB5A 6DB8 9CE1
--