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 13:45:46 +0000

wiki_tomos wrote:

That is because CCPL is not a license to a specific person, but to the general public.

I'm not positive this is true. Indeed, I'm pretty sure it isn't. If I give the same work under one license to A, and another license to B, reglardless of what the license is, A does not automatically get B's rights.

I think we are likely to get confused by the fact that CC licenses allow infinite redistribution. And the fact that people who use CC licenses are trying to get everyone to use their work. But this is a matter of practice, not law.

From a legal POV, I'm confident that I can give a work to *one* person (Joe) under a CC license and no one else. Janet does not automatically get Joe's rights. If I don't want to give her the work, her only recourse is to convince Joe to give it to her.

We get confused about this because, in practice, Joe is free to put the work on a P2P network and share it with 20 million of his best friends. So, in practice, no one uses a CC license if they don't this sort of wide distribution. But again, this is an issue of practice, not law.

GFDL says:

Of course, if the license explicitly grants the rights to everyone in the world, then that trumps what I said above.

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