Re: multiple licenses of same image

On Friday 26 January 2007 07:51 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > On Friday 26 January 2007 03:13 pm, Peter Brink
wrote:
> >> drew Roberts skrev:
> >>  > So, taking this all into consideration,
does this mean you disagree
> >>  > with Mia? Or do you agree with her and I
am too dim or too ignorant
> >>  > at this point to see it?
> >>
> >> You are neither dim nor ignorant.
> >>
> >> Mia’s position seems to be that since the
license is non-exclusive, the
> >> implication (and intention of the license)
must be that the terms of the
> >> license only applies to such copies that
includes an explicit license
> >> statement.
> >
> > I don't follow this logic. I can offer my work as
BY-SA and if someone
> > does not want to deal with the SA aspects, I can
offer them a different
> > license on terms to be agreed upon. This would be
a case of non exclusive
> > licenses on the work that would not force us to
hold the position that
> > the license is only for copies of the work to
which the BY-SA license is
> > attached or that come from a copy to which the
BY-SA license is attached.
>
> If you issue a non-exclusive license what you are
offering are in effect
>   the right to use specific copies of your work. If you
offer three
> different versions of the same work under three
different licenses: A ->
> CC-BY-ND, B -> CC-BY-SA and C -> GFDL. Then that
must reasonably mean
> that version A could only be used under the terms of
CC-BY-ND and not
> CC-BY-SA. If you would have had tripple-licensed the
work, that is
> included three sets of license terms, then the licensee
would have had
> been able to choose which one of the three licenses to
use.
>
> If you had offered the work under an _exclusive
license_ then you would
> have license the work as such (minus any possible moral
rights)
> including all modifications and versions.

So again I ask, would it not be clearer to change the
license from "the work" 
to "this instance of the work and all instances made or
derived from it."

Plus, surely I can sell you a license without providing you
with the work 
itself at all?
>
>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/262954
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

drew Roberts skrev:
> 
> So again I ask, would it not be clearer to change the
license from "the work" 
> to "this instance of the work and all instances
made or derived from it."
>

Perhaps "licensed copy"? A quick check of a few
Swedish standard form 
contracts, dealing with copyright matters, reveals that the
term "work" 
is only used when all economic rights to a works are
transferred from 
the author to for example a publisher. The term
"licensed copy" is used 
when the license only applies to the a specific copy of a
work.

> Plus, surely I can sell you a license without providing
you with the work 
> itself at all?

Yes of course. Collecting societies does this all the time.
If I would 
own a restaurant I would have to pay a collecting society
for playing 
music to entertain my guests and that license wouldn't be
included with 
any of the CD's that I bought.

/Peter Brink
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses