On Apr 11, 2012 12:45 AM, "Sarah" <[email protected]> wrote: > Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are > irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc > non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to > allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the > grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable. > > We would not allow a change of mind in the other direction, but > allowing any change implies that we don't, in fact, regard cc licences > as irrevocable.
A license change doesn't mean the original license has been revoked. (On Flickr or commons) A work can be simultaneously licensed under multiple CC licenses even if they have conflicting terms. (e.g. you could a single work under both BY-ND and BY-NC-SA) That just lets the user/distributor/derivative choose which license(s) to use the work under. -Jeremy
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
