Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>]

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.