Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

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.