Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 20 April 2006 08:03 am, BEn wrote:
> rob AT robmyers.org a écrit :
> > Quoting David Gil Oliva <al016950 AT yahoo.es>:
> >> -The derivative works from a CC-by-nc work can have
> >> any license, otherwise the Share-Alike wouldn't make
> >> any sense.
> >>
> >> For example, John writes a book (CC-by-nc). You make a
> >> film based on that book. You can license the film with
> >> any license you want and even use it commercially.
> >
> > But this surely breaks the intention of anyone licensing their work NC.
> >
> > Respecting the NC condition of the license does not make it sharealike,
> > any more
> > than respecting the attribution condition does.
> >
> > That is, if I use John's book to make a film, I must give him credit as a
> > condition of using the work. I must also make sure I do not use the film
> > commercially. But I do not have to release the entire resulting film as
> > BY-NC.
> >
> > We then get to whether a downstream user would have to respect the NC
> > status of
> > my derivative work. I'm not sure they would, how would I express it to
> > them? But they still would have no license to use the original NC work
> > other than the
> > NC license (would they???). So which part of the film wouldn't be
> > covered?
>
> Ok, the licensee have to use the first license (CC-by-nc) as request in
> this one. And because the SA is omit, he would have the right to use an
> other license : for my example, the cc-by.

My take on how this should work and I hope how it does work.

Ok, the licensee have to use the first license (CC-by-nc) as request in
this one. And because the SA is omit, he would have the right to use another 
license so long as it adds new restrictions (in this case either SA or ND) or 
to use the same license. Something like that.

Going way back to the case which really concerns me though is if I release my 
work with BY-SA does this lock the work and all derivatives to BY-SA or can 
someone add and NC? My understanding is the first option but I have seen 
someone suggest the second.

If CC's intention when drafting the SA option was the former I suggest we 
clear the next version up by adding something like "the same elements and no 
others" to the clause.

If CC's intention is the latter, I request a version that works like the 
former.

I am assuming that their intention is the former, the SA is not really all 
that alike.

Since this is a licensing issue, I am going to CC the other list.

> If anyone else want to use this derivate work, he would have to respect
> this last license (cc-by). Consequently, he would have the right to use
> it commercially...
>
> The situation seems to be ambiguous, the best solution should be to say
> that each license add new restriction, and some time new right... It
> become more and more complex... Finally, the third licensee, which want
> to use the derivate work (cc-by),  would have to respect this license
> only for the work added, and the first one for the original work
> (CC-by-nc).... Nice compatibility... just for two licensee, imagine with
> thousand...
> _______________________________________________

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