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 restrictive includes both:  by-nc-sa.
> >
> >   -- Enric
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
> > <solitude@> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 24 May 2006 21:11:33 +0200, Enric <enric@> 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 CC page says: "Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build
> > upon
> >> this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license
> >> identical to this one."
> >>
> >> If I choose to release my new work under a by-sa license I will be
> >> violating the second person's license. If I choose a nc-sa license I
> > will
> >> be violating the first person's license.
> >>
> >> And that's why I don't like Share-Alike licenses. They make remixing
> > hard
> >> and/or impossible.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> >> <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> >> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
> Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
>






SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to