Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Javier Candeira <javier AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?
  • Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:47:55 +1000

Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:
> Just to add to Rob's point, I think there is also a practical compatibility
> problem when you dual license a work. Consider the following scenario:
> A is a dually licensed (under GPL/ CC_BY_SA) work which is then mixed with
> work B (which is only CC_BY_SA licensed).
> Work AB that will come as a result of such mixing is now miscible ONLY with
> CC_BY_SA works and cannot be dual licensed since it originates from B
> (which
> is a CC_BY_SA only licensed work), unless B's licensor agrees to such new
> form of licensing making B dual licensed as well.
> I think Evan has commented on this issue quite extensively on this list in
> the past.

Thanks! I had missed this point.


> thnx
> pRo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Myers" <rob AT>
> To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
> <cc-licenses AT>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?
> Javier Candeira wrote:
>> Rob Myers wrote:
>>> If you are the original licensor you could dual-license under BY-SA and
>>> GPL, but that's a very bad idea.
>> ¿Rob, can you please expound/expand?
> BY-SA and the GPL are both copyleft licenses but they are designed for
> different kinds of work and protect different kinds of use. They are
> also incompatible.
> Software really shouldn't be licensed BY-SA. It doesn't protect user
> freedom as well as the GPL. In particular you don't have to provide
> modified source code. And if a user makes a BY-SA derivative of the
> software it cannot be used with GPL licensed code (such as libraries).
> Art shouldn't generally be licensed GPL. There is a web site of
> GPL-licensed art, and "software art" (programs that are art) should
> definitely be licensed GPL, but media shouldn't be. Since GPL-licensed
> code can work quite happily with BY-SA licensed media assets (icons,
> sounds) and documentation, there is no real reason to separate these
> from the rest of the BY-SA commons.
> I agree with Evan that more and more art is being represented as
> software (and data), but I think it is still important to distinguish
> between executable software and cultural works. Ultimately we may need
> some kind of polymorphous license that requires that you publish the
> source of your novel when it's published as a LaTeX document and
> requires that you not add a shrinkwrap license when it's published as a
> dead-tree book.
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer:
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page