Re: [videoblogging] Re: Copyright radical

[Charles HOPE]

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 meaning at all, and is not merely a redundant waste of ink written to annoy and befuddle, then it was specifically intended to permit the sort of joint licenses being proposed in this thread -- as long as they are iCommons licenses that "contain the same elements". - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:51:09 +0200, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "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 License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." If the 2nd bolded phrase were completely identical to the 1st bolded phrase, it would be redundant and useless. Andreas Haugstrup wrote: 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 license identical to this one." Identical is equal to equal :o) - Andreas On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:40:06 +0200, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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, improved license contains all the same elements as the two old ones. Andreas Haugstrup 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, 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 License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." It must contain the same elements. It doesn't prohibit it from containing a few more as well! I don't know where you took your math classes, but around here there's a big difference between "equal to" and "equal to or more". :o) SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Typepad Use Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.