Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Thursday 09 March 2006 02:23 pm, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 19:20 +0000, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> > I use the NC-SA licence.
> > My "document" is roughly 5 000 pages long.
> > If somebody wants to distribute a 20 page extract, they can do so
> > under the NC-SA licence.   With an NC-ND licence they could not do so.
> >
> > The SA part allows people to redistribute just the sections that they
> > want to.
>
> No, SA does not ALLOW people to redistribute sections.  It REQUIRES that
> people who do so use the same license.  You don't need to use SA to
> permit derivative works.

Woah. What do you mean SA does not allow people to redistribute sections? On 
the choose a licence page:

http://creativecommons.org/license/

The SA option comes into play under the Allow modifications of your work? 
question.

Are you saying that SA actually includes the ND clause?

Or are you saying that SA is not needed to allow redistribution of sections? 
It does allow it in that it does not seek to prevent it. Right? Wrong? If 
wrong, please explain further.
>
> > [I use the NC in a futile attempt to prevent yet another first edition
> > of my material that is commercially published from also being a
> > pirated, unattributed work.]
>
> BY addresses attribution.

This would be more of a legal enforcement issue right. No matter what licence 
you put on your work, people can do as they wish if they are willing to break 
the law and you are unwilling to persue it. (Speaking practically, not 
legally or morally.)

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145