Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
  • Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:37:56 +0000

wiki_tomos wrote:
Daniel seems to think that PDF (non-editable) and OpenOffice (editable) versions of a text are different works.

No, I didn't say that. I gave an example to illustrate the consequences of the reasoning proposed.

Someone argued that saving in a different format and losing some data made it a different work. "If this is true", I said, "then the this follows". It's just a tool for verifying whether the premise is sound.

Personally, I don't think that a PDF version and an OpenDocument version are different works.

Side note: it's not "OpenOffice", it's "OpenDocument". There's a big difference:
* OpenDocument is an industry standard (OASIS and ISO).
* OpenDocument is superior to the old OpenOffice format.
* Many applications support or plan to support OpenDocument:

http://opendocumentfellowship.org/Applications/HomePage


Back to the Magnatune's case, if their WAV files contain extra creative details that are missing from the mp3 versions, then you cannot freely distribute the WAV files.

What if they sound the same to me? :)

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.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page