Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Antoine <antoine AT pitrou.net>]

Le mardi 22 novembre 2005 à 21:41 +0000, Daniel Carrera a écrit :
> This is questionable. OpenDocument files can contain macros, Xforms, 
> embedded video, slide transitions and other things that just don't exist 
> in PDF.

The original message said "a printed book, a PDF and an OpenDocument of
the same *text* are fixed forms of the same work (and, in the license
sense, Work)." (emphasis mine)

I was just answering that argument. Of course if things other than pure
text are involved, the point is not necessarily valid anymore.

> You can create *an* OpenDocument file, of course. But it's like creating 
> a WAV file from the MP3.

That's exactly my point.

> Let's not confuse the issue with talk of the "original". That doesn't 
> exist in the digital world. You have two copies of a creative work. We 
> want to figure out if you can CC-license one copy but not the other.

Let me restate my argument: a license applies from the point in the
descendance where the author wants it to apply. It can apply
transitively downstream (especially if the license is of the
sharealike/copyleft flavour), but it does not magically apply upstream.

Either you can fully recreate an upstream work from the sole CC-licensed
work, so you can claim the upstream work is also CC-licensed (it's
actually your recreation of it that is CC-licensed), or you can't, and
you can't claim anything on the upstream work.

Regards

Antoine.