Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

heya, first up - i don't read the original posting as asking that.  i  
read the original posting as asking whether you can have one version  
of the work under a CC license and a version of the work in a  
different format under an ARR copyright.

secondly, in your hypo, i think the answer is no. just because  
someone has offered something under one set of license terms (license  
A, let's say) and then another (license B), doesn't give licensee A  
the authority to switch to license B.  however, as a practical matter  
this question may be moot because if licensee B became aware of the  
less restrictively licensed work then they could go and take a copy  
under that license and so become a licensee under that license.

On Dec 14, 2006, at 5:30 AM, drew Roberts wrote:

> On Thursday 14 December 2006 07:57 am, Mia Garlick wrote:
> > actually, i disagree....see e.g., clause 7(b) (referring to the BY
> > license for ease of reference) confirms that: "Notwithstanding the
> > above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under
> > different license terms..."
> >
> > the license is non-exclusive, thus it is perfectly acceptable for a
> > licensor to offer one version under a CC license and one under
> > separate licensing terms.
>
> I am happy to hear you disagree, so just to be sure we are on the  
> same page
> Mia, here is what I was trying to do:
>
> http://www.ourmedia.org/node/42417
> http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
> http://www.lulu.com/zotz
>
> So, are you saying that if I release a photo at 640X480 under BY-SA  
> and
> 800X600 BY-NC-ND, a person could not take the 800X600 and apply the  
> BY-SA
> license to it as they have such a license for "the work"???
>
> I know I can give out different licenses, the question is can a  
> person "move
> licenses" to other versions that they have of the same work? I hope  
> that it
> is clear what I am asking.
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> > On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:14 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
> > > On Thursday 14 December 2006 02:55 am, Amit Yadav wrote:
> > > > hi all,
> > > > i wanted to know if it is possible to have a song file at say 128
> > > > kbps
> > > > under CC license and have another file (of the same song) at say
> > > > 256kbps under Copyright (the usual "all rights reserved" one) when
> > > > both files are of the same recording….. ??
> > >
> > > I would like it if that were possible, I was trying the same thing
> > > with
> > > pictures, I was told no. It is the "work" that is licenses, not an
> > > instance
> > > of the work.
> > >
> > > I would still appreciate a better explanation of why it must be
> > > this way.
> > >
> > > > thanks
> > > > Amit
> > >
> > > all the best,
> > >
> > > drew
> > > --
> > > (da idea man)
> > > National Novel Writing Month
> > > Sayings (Winner 2006)
> > > http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cc-licenses mailing list
> > > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> --
> (da idea man)
> National Novel Writing Month
> Sayings (Winner 2006)
> http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses