Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

On 3 Jan 2006 15:53:55 +0900
wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp> wrote:
> With that in mind, another example: Greg writes a poem,
> releases it  under CC-BY-SA 2.0, Helen makes it into a
> song lyric, releases it  under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Ian makes it
> a book of an illustrated short story,  and wants to
> release it under GFDL. Can he do that? On what ground?
> 
> Helen's part is easier to use. Her contribution to the
> Ian's book is  usable by CC-BY-SA 3.0, which lets Ian to
> chose GFDL for the book.  And when Ian choses GFDL, the
> CC-BY-SA 3.0 says, Ian just has to  follow GFDL only, not
> the rest of the CC-BY-SA 3.0.
> 
> Greg's part, on the other hand, is not under CC-BY-SA 3.0.
> It is still  under CC-BY-SA 2.0. So to the part that
> Greg's creative expression  is still in the Ian's book,
> Ian has to follow CC-BY-SA 2.0. What  does it tell Ian to
> do? Well, two things. (1) First, Ian "may  distribute, ...
> a Derivative Work only under the terms of this  License, a
> later version of this License with the same License
> Elements  as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons
> license that contains  the same License Elements as this
> License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike  2.0 Japan)." Could
> this mean that Ian cannot chose GFDL? Well, that sounds
> like a good question to me. And I am afraid that  the
> answer is no. Ian could chose CC-BY-SA 3.0 as "a later
> version of  this License with the same Licene Elements"
> but what does it mean  when the 2.0 license tells Ian
> "distribute... only under the terms  of" that license? I
> am inclined to say that it simply means that  Ian has to
> license the derivative to the public under that license 
> (3.0). It does not mean Ian can "follow" what 3.0 says,
> and thereby  release the book under GFDL.

Yes, it does. Ian is part of the public to which the work
may be released under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 2.0, 2.5, or
3.0. If the work is released under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, he is
entitled to release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0, to himself, as
well as other people.  As a result, he then has the freedoms
granted by CC-BY-SA 3.0, including (assuming such a grant is
included), the ability to release under GFDL.

Since this is possible, he can effectively release straight
to GFDL, with the implication that it is also released under
CC-BY-SA 3.0 (it's like a dual license).

Whether this is desireable or not is an issue for CC (and
this list) to discuss -- has Greg been unfairly taken
advantage of by this sequence of events?

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com