Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Antoine <antoine AT pitrou.net>]

> In a PDF the work may well be altered simply due to the limitations of 
> an export filter. So, if "altering" is the criteria, then my giving you 
> a PDF file as CC doesn't give you the right to edit the OpenDocument 
> original.

But from this PDF I can re-create *another* OpenDocument file that will
be just like the original. The license allows me to do so. That's what
matters here.

If you are given a CC'ed MP3 file, you have the right to re-create a WAV
file from that MP3 file, under the same CC license. (well, provided the
CC license is not an -ND license)

But that does *not* give you the right to claim an existing WAV file is
also CC-licensed, when it actually isn't.


> Evan suggested that the criteria might be "creative altering".

I think you are going too much into "creative arguing" here ;)
A copy is not the same of the original; whether it has been "creatively
altered" or not is irrelevant.
 
Remember our discussion about the FAL: in the digital world, everything
is a copy. If I'm the author of a work, I can decide a specific copy is
under the FAL (or the CC-by-sa, or whatever), but that the original
isn't. It's just as simple. The author decides, and the user complies.

So, all the talk about how an MP3 is similar to the WAV file is
pointless. The author decides at which point the descendance of a work
becomes under a specific license. Works upstream that point cannot be
considered under the same license, even if the user would like it.

Regards

Antoine.