Re: Yet another bunch of licences
Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen <juhtolv@cc.jyu.fi>
> "Attribution"
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
It is not immediately clear that the license's definition of
"Derivative Work":
| "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
| and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
| arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture
| version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment,
| condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast,
| transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a
| Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the
| purpose of this License.
includes the kind of *unlimited* modifications that are required for
DFSG-freedom. The derivation processes enumerated here seem all to be
ones that aim at preserving the "spirit" of the original work in
another medium - what about ones that change the spirit but keep the
medium?
Say for example that "Moby Dick" were released under this license.
Would it be a "deriviative work" under the above definition if I took
the text and subsituted "George W." for every "Ahab" and "Saddam" for
every "Moby"?
Is "any other form in which the Work may be recast" enough of a
loophole here?
The end of clause 4a sounds slightly fishy:
| If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You
| must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any
| reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If
| You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You
| must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any
| reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.
as it seems potentially conflicting with clause 4b that says that you
*must* credit the original author. So there is no way for a modifier
to protect himself agains the possibly orneous burden of retroactively
changing a derived work he has already finalized. To which degree a
modifier is required to track down existing copies that do credit the
original author is not clear.
> "ShareAlike"
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0
Has the same definition of "Derivative Work".
Also have the same clause 4a as the previous license, but does not
combine it with the obligation to credit the original author. So one
should be on the safe side if one systematically removes all credit
before distributing a modified version at all. However, it doesn't
*feel* right to do so to me...
> "Attribution-ShareAlike"
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0
Same possible problems as for the "by" version above.
--
Henning Makholm "Det er du nok fandens ene om at
mene. For det ligger i Australien!"
Reply to: