That's not the way I read the License.
"Attribution Share Alike (by-sa)
This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial
reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical
terms. This license is often compared to open s
So "share" would be a poor choice of words since it connotates
permission whereas the license restricts.
-- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any license which is not a Share-Alike allows for easy re-use in one
form
> or another.
okay - wow - this has gone far (but interesting) from what I was asking about so let me try again.The licence that I was talking about was BY-SA. I DO want to allow remixes and sampling. According to that license if you alter or make a derivitive work you must release it under the same license w
Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
The translations are identical (they give/retain the same rights), but
must be considered different licenses since they are adapted for each
jurisdiction.
Are we done nitpicking or do you have an actual point to get to?
Sure. If the 2nd phrase has any m
The translations are identical (they give/retain the same rights), but
must be considered different licenses since they are adapted for each
jurisdiction.
Are we done nitpicking or do you have an actual point to get to?
- Andreas
On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:51:09 +0200, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PR
"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
> digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License,
> a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this
> License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same
>
Any license which is not a Share-Alike allows for easy re-use in one form
or another. It's up to each individual to choose which one is best for
them.
- Andreas
On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:45:02 +0200, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So is the sampling license the way to go for allowing rem
Legal licenses are written in legal vernacular. Since neither of us are
lawyers we get to use the human-readable description to guide us to the
right interpretation of "same". It reads: "If you alter, transform, or
build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a
So is the sampling license the way to go for allowing remixing?
http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling?format=audio
-- Enric
-==-
http://www.cirne.com
http://www.cinegage.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, it must
It didn't say "equal to" though. It said "contains the same".
In vernacular English it can go either way. Do you have a picture of
Lindsay Lohan and one of Keira Knightly on your website? Cool, my site contains
the same ones. (But I also have a picture of a decapitated
elephant.) And my new
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
> >
> > Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says:
> >
> > "You may distribute, publicl
On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:23:27 +0200, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
>
> Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says:
>
> "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
> digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms o
Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty
of all men to disobey unjust laws.
-- Martin Luther King Jr.
;
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What part of "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work,
Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says:
"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License,
a later version of this License with the same License Elements
Normally, yes, but not in this care. The license says:
"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License,
a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this
License, or a Creati
Legal loophole: can a work have two licenses simultaneously?
Andreas Haugstrup wrote:
What part of "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you *may*
distribute the resulting work *only* under a license identical to this
one" is unclear to you (emphasis mine)?
And from the
What part of "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you *may*
distribute the resulting work *only* under a license identical to this
one" is unclear to you (emphasis mine)?
And from the legal code:
"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally
It sounds like what you're referring to is "Attribution No Deriviatives." This allows
commercial and non-commercial that leaves the content unchanged and gives attribution.
If you used "Attribution Share Alike" others can alter your content, remix, mash-up etc.
There are myriad variations bu
Though it doesn't look like it "should".
- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, it must be the *same* license.
>
> - Andreas
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 22:09:26 +0200, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would think the more
No, it must be the *same* license.
- Andreas
On Wed, 24 May 2006 22:09:26 +0200, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would think the more restrictive includes both: by-nc-sa.
>
> -- Enric
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On W
I would think the more restrictive includes both: by-nc-sa.
-- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 21:11:33 +0200, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why can't by-sa be mixed with nc-sa?
>
> Because the fir
On Wed, 24 May 2006 21:11:33 +0200, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why can't by-sa be mixed with nc-sa?
Because the first stipulates that any new works must be released under a
by-sa license while the second stipulates that the new work must be
released under a nc-sa license.
As the C
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 20:50:14 +0200, Michael Verdi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So if I release work under creative commons share alike - people are
> > free to
> > use my work commercially only wh
I've been a big fan of Negativland for years so I was pleased to see
an interview with one of the members of Negativland Mark Holser at
Minnesota Stories
(http://www.mnstories.com/archives/2006/05/negativlands_ma.html).
Watch it if you can, because Mark has an interesting take on CC and
Cop
Hello Will,On 5/15/06, wtrainbow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Charles,I'm not sure what your point is. You can certainly make the argument that copyright law ismorally wrong, I don't agree it is, but even if you and others believe it is so what.Are you advocating violating copyright law as
Hello Charles,
I'm not sure what your point is. You can certainly make the argument that copyright law is
morally wrong, I don't agree it is, but even if you and others believe it is so what.
Are you advocating violating copyright law as some sort of protest?
The fact is that there are ple
26 matches
Mail list logo
