Re: Can CC BY 2.0 be upgraded to 3.0 ?
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:37:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:28:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Er, I don't understand why you think this is significant. The work
> >> formed by taking the original and putting it under a different license
> >> is trivially a derivative work.
> > While it's not defined to my liking in the CC* set, it defines a
> > derivative work as::
> > | "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
> > | other pre-existing works,
I would say the same thing with a new license is "based upon the Work". The
rest is a list of examples what _is_ included, not about what isn't. How does
it imply that adding creative content is required?
> > | 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,
And there's this limitation, but it's not relevant here (or are you saying that
> > | except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
> > | considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
> > I'm not convinced a relicense is considered a work based upon the work.
> > Just like a patch, I'd assume this to be a creative work / modification
> > to the work.
Are those not "Derivative Works" then?
> Ah, I hadn't ever thought about it from that angle. Basically, the
> argument is that if there's no original creative addition, it can't be a
> derivative work? On first glance, 17 U.S.C. § 101 appears to support
I don't see how you read it in there either...
> A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting
"one or more" implies that no second creative work is required.
The rest is examples of what is a derivative work, but doesn't exclude
> such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
> reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
> work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
> which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
> “derivative work”.
> The definition does require that it be "an original work of authorship,"
> which isn't true of trivial changes to the original.
You're talking about the definition of a "work" here, I presume? I don't see
how that makes any difference. It doesn't say "two or more works"; just one is