On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Johannes Weißl <jar...@molb.org> wrote: > Hello Nicolás, > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:16:37PM +0200, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: >> >> 2. The license is not an attribute of the download. If a release is >> >> available under two different licenses from two different locations, it >> >> is automatically dual-licensed and the user can pick his favorite >> >> license independent from the download location [2]. >> >> +1 too but please point me to the part of the FAQ which says this, as >> I am not seeing it (probably related to just waking up, but still) > > Hmm, apparently it got removed in the meantime, in a revision that > restructured the whole FAQ page [1]. I'm pretty sure that this doesn't > mean the fact is wrong. To be on the safe side, I asked the staff member > who did the revision in [2].
Oooh, interesting! So that means a release can technically be both BY-NC-SA and BY-ND, meaning you can only create derivative works for non commercial use but you can use it as-is for commercial stuff? Clever! > [1] > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&action=historysubmit&diff=53217&oldid=53112 > [2] > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User_talk:Nkinkade#Regarding_removal_of_.22two_different_CC_licenses.22_paragraph_from_FAQ > > > Johannes > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
