Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 04:39 am, Daniel Carrera 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.

I think you could indeed do this, it would then be up to you to prove that 
the 
pdf I distribute under the cc terms is one I bought from you and not one I 
made myself from the cc licensed OpenDocument file. Now, why someone would 
ever want to do this will remain a mystery.

Just imagine that these things happen with a decent amount of time between 
them. And in a different order. I sell you a pdf file with standard copyright 
terms. A year later, I decide I have made what I want from my sales of the 
file and I am going to open my doc under a cc by-sa license and do so in a 
different format. The old pdf does not in some magic way assume the new 
license.
>
> Why? Because all the expression in the OpenDocument file is contained in
> the PDF file, and because the PDF file is a derivative.

I think this is irrelevant. Plus, it may not be so. I may have made the pdf 
from a latex version which I have spent considerable time to make sure it can 
produce camera ready copy whereas the pdf from the opendoc format may be 
inferior as pertains to this. Also, there may be different fonts involved. 
The opendocument version would depend upon your own fonts possibly with your 
own licenses. The pdf may contain fonts which I have licensed and have no 
right to give out a CC BY-SA license to. (If indeed this font issue works 
like this, I am guessing here.)
>
> 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. 

Agreed.

> I can sell you 
> OpenOffice.org for $10 or you can download it for free. The work itself,
> OpenOffice.org, is still LGPL.

Agreed.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22