Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Hannes <hannes AT atalante.org>]

That sounds a bit strange to me. It's like saying that by using a by-sa 
licensed image in a book or webpage, the book or webpage itself would 
also need to be licensed under by-sa.

Regarding this sentence from the by-sa 2.5 legal code:

"For the avoidance of doubt, where the
Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the
synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License."

I can interpret that as: "If you alter the Work in any way to make it 
synchronized with a moving image, the altered Work will be considered a 
Derivative Work." I don't feel that sentence is very clear whatever its 
intention is. Isn't "the synchronization of the Work" a process? How can 
a process be considered a work at all?

Hannes


Evan Prodromou wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-18-10 at 13:49 -0700, Wrye Modder wrote:
>
> > Movie as a derivative work (from section 1b of 2.5
> > by-sa license): "For the avoidance of doubt, where the
> > Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the
> > synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
> > moving image ("synching") will be considered a
> > Derivative Work for the purpose of this License."
> >
> > IANAL, and I'm new to the list, so perhaps someone
> > will correct me, but that seems pretty clear from the
> > license text.
> >    
>
> Seems pretty clear to me, too.
>
> ~Evan