Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Sincaglia, Nicolas" <nsincaglia AT musicnow.com>]

>This depends on whether the license is attached to the *file* or the
>"work". And this is ultimatley the question I'm trying to ask.

I believe Drew is incorrect in his understanding of the license. It is the 
"work" that is under the creative commons license and not the "file". 
 
The license clearly states in the first sentence 
 
"THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE 
COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY 
COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS 
AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED. "
 
That definition below is ""Work" means the copyrightable work of authorship 
offered under the terms of this License. "
 
Nick


        -----Original Message----- 
        From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Daniel 
Carrera 
        Sent: Mon 11/21/2005 5:23 PM 
        To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts 
        Cc: 
        Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
        
        

        drew Roberts wrote:
        > My take is that unlees you have a license or some text somewhere
        > to the effect that the wav is under the same license, it would be
        > dangerous to assume that it is.
        
        I'm not assuming anything, and I'm not trying to get permission to
        distribute an album I just bought to more than 3 friends. I just 
think I
        hit an interesting question whose answer I don't know, and an 
important
        real-life scenario.
        
        > Think of mp3 as low res and wav as high res and I think you would 
see why
        > someone might not want this "automaticly under the same license" 
idea to fly.
        
        I have no doubt. But the question is whether the idea is correct.
        
        > You could even give a text file to party A with a CC BY-SA license 
and to
        > party B with an all rights reserved license. Party B might know 
about party
        > A's license, but unless they can get a copy from A or someone else 
A has
        > distributed to, they would not to my mind be able to pretend they 
have the
        > BY-SA licensed version. (Anyone see where I can be wrong in this 
thought?)
        
        This depends on whether the license is attached to the *file* or the
        "work". And this is ultimatley the question I'm trying to ask.
        
        Cheers,
        Daniel.
        --
              /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
             /\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
            /\/_/  No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
            \/_/   However, a significant number of electrons were
            /      were severely inconvenienced.
        _______________________________________________
        cc-licenses mailing list
        cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
        http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

<<winmail.dat>>