cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
Re: [cc-licenses] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license
- From: Platonides <Platonides AT gmail.com>
- To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Cc: commons-l AT lists.wikimedia.org
- Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license
- Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:32:51 +0100
Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
[...]
After rereading the CC-BY legal code it does appear you (and others
who made this point) are correct, and I was quite mistaken about the
strength of the CC-BY license.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
"You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms
of this License."
Indeed it seems CC-BY is already the "weak copyleft" I was thinking
CC-BY-SA is... CC-BY is much stronger than I realised. I thought CC-BY
just meant "include a byline with my name".
No it isn't, there is one important difference: derivative work, i.e. modified
versions. Again, compare to the LGPL: modified versions must be distributed
under the same license (though larger works which use/incorporate clearly
demarked LGPL components do not). This is not true for CC-BY: if i make a
derivative of a CC-BY work, I have to attribute the author, but i can license
my
version under whatever conditions i like. That's not weak copyleft, that's no
copyleft at all.
I like that concaption. However, as simple it is to differenciate when it's a text/image issue, what happens when the modified version is also an image, but breader. Eg. the virgin case. Is that a composition of your photo with the text and background (it would have been composed in layers) or simply a derivative work?
The LGPL doesn't either define the difference.
Daniel Kinzler wrote:
something like "CC-BY-SA/commons-mod".Don't call it so. People would start confusing it with Cc-by-sa. Maybe CC-BY-LSA (Less Share-Alike) following LGPL sample?
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license
, (continued)
- Re: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license, drew Roberts, 12/02/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license, Evan Prodromou, 12/02/2007
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license,
Rob Myers, 12/02/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license, drew Roberts, 12/02/2007
-
Re: [cc-licenses] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license,
Delphine Ménard, 12/02/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license, Benj. Mako Hill, 12/02/2007
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license,
Gavin Baker, 12/02/2007
-
Re: [cc-licenses] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license,
Brianna Laugher, 12/03/2007
-
Re: [cc-licenses] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license,
drew Roberts, 12/03/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license, Gregory Maxwell, 12/03/2007
-
Message not available
- Re: [cc-licenses] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license, Platonides, 12/05/2007
-
Re: [cc-licenses] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license,
drew Roberts, 12/03/2007
-
Re: [cc-licenses] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license,
Brianna Laugher, 12/03/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.