Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>]

drew Roberts skrev:
> On Friday 26 January 2007 03:13 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> > drew Roberts skrev:
> >  > So, taking this all into consideration, does this mean you disagree
> >  > with Mia? Or do you agree with her and I am too dim or too ignorant at
> >  > this point to see it?
> >
> > You are neither dim nor ignorant.
> >
> > Mia’s position seems to be that since the license is non-exclusive, the
> > implication (and intention of the license) must be that the terms of the
> > license only applies to such copies that includes an explicit license
> > statement. 
>
> I don't follow this logic. I can offer my work as BY-SA and if someone does 
> not want to deal with the SA aspects, I can offer them a different license on 
> terms to be agreed upon. This would be a case of non exclusive licenses on 
> the work that would not force us to hold the position that the license is 
> only for copies of the work to which the BY-SA license is attached or that 
> come from a copy to which the BY-SA license is attached.

If you issue a non-exclusive license what you are offering are in effect 
 the right to use specific copies of your work. If you offer three 
different versions of the same work under three different licenses: A -> 
CC-BY-ND, B -> CC-BY-SA and C -> GFDL. Then that must reasonably mean 
that version A could only be used under the terms of CC-BY-ND and not 
CC-BY-SA. If you would have had tripple-licensed the work, that is 
included three sets of license terms, then the licensee would have had 
been able to choose which one of the three licenses to use.

If you had offered the work under an _exclusive license_ then you would 
have license the work as such (minus any possible moral rights) 
including all modifications and versions.


/Peter Brink