cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?")

From: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?")
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:25:23 -0500 (EST)

> And the central question is when CC-BY-SA 2.0 says
> Ian "may distribute, ... a Derivative Work only under
> ... a later version of this License with the same License
> Elements as this License..." does that mean that Ian
> can now switch the license of Greg's poem from 2.0 to 3.0?

I believe that is true.
My understanding is that this wording was intended
to allow the licenses to be upgraded and bring all
the works along with it, rather than having to
require all contributers actively update the licenses
to their works.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Greg London

--
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/

[cc-licenses] (no subject), wiki_tomos, 01/03/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Terry Hancock, 01/03/2006
  - [cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?"), wiki_tomos, 01/03/2006
    - Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?"), Terry Hancock, 01/04/2006
    - Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?"), Greg London, 01/05/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?"), Rob Myers, 01/05/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?"), wiki_tomos, 01/05/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject) ("which license is this work under?"), rob, 01/06/2006