Hi,
Ulf Möller wrote:
Are you saying that CC doesn't apply to a Produced Work at all because
it is not a copyrightable work of authorship?
No, Richard's argument was that a Produced Work could be seen as having
two components; one being the copyrightable work of authorship, which
would be
On 6 Mar 2009, at 16:11, 80n wrote:
I may have got this all wrong but it seems to me that Produced Works
are potentially compatible with most licenses, but are not
compatible with most share alike licenses. I hope this isn't right
and that someone can explain the flaws in my
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
there are three things that spring to mind
I meant four (no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition, etc.).
4. OSMF can request additional permissions over and above ODbL from its
users, as part of the new user sign-up, or the licence change agreement.
(Effectively
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
1. Creative Commons licences define Work (which you're quoting in the case
of 4a) as the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of
this License (1e). I.e., as we know by now, CC-BY-SA is defined and
I don't think we want to provide a bypass for the reverse engineering
clause, so much as ensure that it can be an SA produced work plus no
reverse engineering combined.
Cheers,
Andy
Who should be out on his bike mapping Dolgellau instead of reading
legal-talk on holiday...
On 6 Mar
