Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT prodromou.name>]

On Mon, 2007-15-01 at 11:56 -0800, Mia Garlick wrote:

> this is not the way CC licenses work and contravenes the language of  
> the license and its intent.

That is a strong statement! Could you please explain that? My
understanding of the licenses is that the licensor grants the license
for a _work_, and not for any particular fixed form of the work. Only
inasmuch as two different fixed forms exist as different works (say, one
has significantly different creative expression than the other) would
they be licensed differently.

>  this has already been explained on this  
> list.  eg., just because larry releases a PDF version of his book  
> under a CC license, does not give you the right to walk into any  
> bookstore and demand a free copy of the hardcopy or exercise rights  
> possible in respect of the PDF with regard to the hardcopy.

That's a red herring. No Creative Commons license forces any distributor
to give away gratis copies of anything in any medium.

A more reasonable example would be if Larry releases a hardback book
under a Creative Commons license -- say, by-nd 2.5 -- and Michelle
copies the text verbatim to a PDF file and distributes that on her Web
site. I don't think Larry could say that the license terms were
exceeded.

~Evan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part