On Dec 1, 2007 7:19 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Gregory Maxwell writes:
The CC-By-SA text, which you quoted
incompletely, is fairly
unambiguous: it even goes out of its way to point out that you are
subject to the copyleft when you combine covered sound or video to
create a new work
What is problematic is that the Creative Commons has advised people
with advice that is at odds with the license.
This is not legally problematic, however it may be a problem for some
folks otherwise. The plain language of the CC-BY-SA text would trump
anyone's attempt to define the license in a way that is at odds with
the text. No court would rule otherwise, even if Larry Lessig showed
up and argued the other side.
I should add that I don't think speculation about the motives or
thought processes of Creative Commons folks tells me much. After a
while, I just look at the plain language of the license in question
and make my decisions based on that language.
As Greg already noted, motivations/intentions matter a great deal when the
license has an open ended "or later versions" clause. If a court found that
the license actually meant something other than what the Creative Commons
had intended, then they could simply write a new version.
-Robert A. Rohde