Re: Can CC BY 2.0 be upgraded to 3.0 ?
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:31:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bas Wijnen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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 enough.
> The key phrase is "original," not "work." Original work generally means,
> in US copyright law, that there is some creative component or content that
> makes it copyrightable. It's the same phrase used to determine whether
> something is copyrightable in the first place.
Sure, but if you have a program, then that is an original work. Slamming a new
license on it creates a new original work (there is still creative content in
it), which is based on the original "original work". You didn't quote anything
that said the derivation must itself be an original work. In fact, the
statement that only one original work is required for making a derivative means
that it doesn't need to be, as far as I can see.