Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Marco Raaphorst <marco.raaphorst AT gmail.com>]

On 11/22/05, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com> wrote:

wiki_tomos wrote:
> What is licensed is certain rights in all the creative _expression_
> fixed in the mp3 file, but some more subtle creative expressions are fixed
> in wav file only. The latter is not licensed.

This might be a valid argument. In addition, you can say that the MP3 is
a derivative of the WAV and that makes them different. Assuming this
interpretation is correct, that would mean that, back to the OpenOffice
user guide example:

* I can give you a PDF version under CC and sell you the OpenDocument
version without CC.
(because the PDF derives from the OpenDocumnet original)

* I CANNOT do the converse. If I give you the OpenDocument file under a
CC license, and sell you a PDF file, I cannot tell you that you can't
use the PDF file under the CC terms.

Why? Because all the _expression_ in the OpenDocument file is contained in
the PDF file, and because the PDF file is a derivative.

This is the apparent consequence of attaching the license to "the work"
instead of "the file". It sort of makes sense in practice, because you
could perfectly well grab the OpenDocument file and make your own PDF,
or grab the WAV file and make an MP3; but you can't go in the other
direction.

> I think it is somewhat like different copies of the same book (same edition,
> from the same publisher) that are priced differently in different locations.

Irrelevant. The price has nothing to do with the license. I can sell you
OpenOffice.org for $10 or you can download it for free. The work itself,
OpenOffice.org, is still LGPL.

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

 

If WAV versus MP3 makes a difference we could  also start interpreting
different quality settings in the MP3 file. Some people for example
offer 128 kbps for radio-stream and high quality for download. But if
that's the case, it would make things extremely difficult. 


In my opinion both WAV and MP3, or Ogg are licensed under Creative Commons by-nc-sa 1.0 at Magnatune. 

-- 

http://marcoraaphorst.nl (Dutch)
http://melodiefabriek.nl (English)