start a New page

From Wikigogy

[edit] by vs by-sa

Difference between these two Creative Commons licenses (/by/ and /by-sa/)

I compaired Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5

The only material difference is that /by-sa/ has this additional paragraph in Section 4 that declares *Derivative Work* must be licensed under this same license:

"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). You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License or other license specified in the previous sentence with every copy or phonorecord of each Derivative Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Derivative Works that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder, and You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Derivative Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Derivative Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Derivative Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License."

Both licenses are otherwise identical, including the following two paragraphs in their Miscellaneous sections that say the *original Work* retains it's license. I had mistook this to mean Derived Work, too, but I now see it does not.

"Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

"Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, 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."

"original Work" (second paragraph) does not include new Derivative Work.

--Roger 05:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] by-sa

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (by-sa) keeps even Derived Work, for example that commercial interests may make of our Work, under the identical free license and thus available for us to bring a copy of back into wikigogy and or commercialize if we wish. If a commercial interest can make a Work from wikigogy better I would like them to as long as we can bring back a copy or even commercialize it further ourselves so that we have not set ourselves up for exploition. And if a commercial interest can disseminate a wikigogy Work I would like them to as long as they give attribution. "Share-alike" lets the Work have a life of its own while maintaining everyone's right to it; "by-attribution" helps the world learn about wikigogy. --Roger 05:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)