<--- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved:


<I think there are two licenses that meet the Open Source Definition:
<the Attribution license:

<    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

<...and the Attribution-ShareAlike license:

 <   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

<(Why the other licenses would not be Open Source is left as an
<exercise to the reader.)

<In discussing this on the Creative Commons cc-licenses list, one
<commenter thought that the Attribution license element* would not meet
<the OSD.


<The Attribution license element requires that the upstream creator's
<copyright notices be kept intact; that their names or pseudonyms, if
<provided, be included in the work where other authors' names are, as
<best as possible for the medium; and that an URL for license and
<copyright info be included.

i don't think that attribution match with osi definition, as it requires  to allow 
derivative works, and CC-by has not this clause. 
I do agree that CC-by-sa match with osi definition as this second license allows 
derivative works.
Despite of this, remember that in some legal sistems the attribution clause is not 
required, as the law requires this kind of right. So for instance in cc-spa and in 
cc-ita they have decided to include the attribution clause per defoult in all the 
license solutions.

A question: about the source code: as CC refers to multimedia many times there is not 
source code. But, in CC there is not requirements to deliver or make availabe a copy 
of the work in an open format (as FDL does). Any comments?


Aconsegueix [EMAIL PROTECTED] gratuÃtament a http://teatre.com
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to