Francis Thank you for your patience and the detail of your answers. This whole thing is a complicated business and the subtleties when various different licenses and so forth are combine are often unexpected.
80n On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> That is the situation you are describing. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "the situation you are describing", but > > Ah, this is where we are probably at cross purposes. I am sorry for > that - its been a long thread. 80n's original query concerned > uploading work to OSMF by someone who has agreed to the contributor > terms. That is a sublicence (because it is expressed that way) and > that is something which CC-BY-SA does not permit (I think we agree on > that point). > >> it's not how CC-BY-SA works, since CC-BY-SA specifically says that it >> does not grant permission to sublicense. Instead "Each time You >> Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation, Licensor offers to the >> recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and >> conditions as the license granted to You under this License." >> > > ... and my mistake, yes of course the right to sublicense applies only > to derivative works. Under the US 3.0 at least, the CC licence grants > a right to sublicence derivative works but not the original work. > >> Under CC-BY-SA, X licenses the work to Y, Z, and any other third >> party, granting permission to distribute the work under [the terms of] >> L1, L2, or any other Compatible License. The licenses to the >> contributions of X come from X, not from Y. >> > > Yes. > >> If Y made modifications to the work, Y's license covers only Y's >> modifications. If Z then makes modifications, Z's license covers only > > No. Y's licence covers the whole of the derived work. X's licence > covers all the work as not modified by Y. Z benefits from both those > licences as against the respective licensors, which makes sense. > >> Z's modifications. I assume the reason this is done is to simplify the >> chain of title, and also to avoid complications with copyright >> transfers, inheritance, infringements, etc. On the "why" though maybe >> a CC list would be the best place to ask. >> > > Yes, that was my understanding. The CC model is a new licence to all > users of the work from the original licensor which avoids problems > with chain of title. To the extent that CC licences are not contracts > this is fine. Certainly in the UK CC doesn't rely on contract to work. > I suspect there are more difficulties with ODbL style contract-reliant > effects to third parties of this kind. > > Anyway, as you say this is fairly off topic and not what 80n asked. > > -- > Francis Davey > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
