Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 30 August 2006 03:59 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:45 am, Greg London wrote:
> >> On 8/28/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian AT gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> And, yes I know you guys have put alot of work into defining the what
> >>> you call a "derivative work" and what you call a "aggregate" in
> >>> legalese. But it seems like a choice you guys made.
> >>
> >> It's based on what the law says, not what we say.
> >> Aggregate and collective works are legal concepts,
> >> not just some choice we made.
> >>
> >>> To me, all "aggregates" are "derivative works".
> >>
> >> And the law says otherwise.
> >
> > Yes, but could we not make the stipulation that they must be treated as
> > derivative works if the other party wants a license without negotiation?
> > Sort of what is done with the sync rights with songs and videos/movies?
> > (Not saying we should or shouldn't just asking if we can or can't.)
>
> Sure - we could do that, but that would have the side effect of making
> it impossible to aggregate works licensed under different copyleft
> licenses. You would not, for example, be able to create a webpage
> generated by a GPL php-script, including a few CC-BY photos and
> containing a CC-BY-SA text.

Like I think I said, I was not advocating that it should be done, just 
pointing out that I thought it could be done. You seem to agree that it could 
be done. I think someone else was doing the advocating.
>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

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