- From: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:55:43 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 07/15/2013 01:43 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Hi, > > I didn't realize I said to Robin that CC-BY was okay. I should have > checked with a lawyer or at least the CC FAQ before saying anything of > the sort. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby makes it > pretty clear why it's not acceptable to me. My apologies for making it > appear otherwise. Hi Anne, The GNU license list says only that the two licenses are not compatible, meaning one can't simply re-license CC-BY material under GPL. It doesn't say that both aren't usable in the same manner; I think they are. I understand the GPL incompatibility to be that CC-BY does not permit sub-licensing. However, W3C in its Process and document license commits to making technical reports available free of charge to the general public under its document license in perpetuity. [1] Therefore, every would-be user of the code gets a license directly from W3C, and does not need a sub-license. Does this help? --Wendy [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#dissemination > > Kind regards, > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://wendy.seltzer.org/ +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 13:55:45 UTC