16 Jun
2013
16 Jun
'13
2:04 p.m.
Am 15.06.2013 19:09, schrieb hermann meyer:
Am 15.06.2013 18:38, schrieb Nils Gey:
The best is happen at least,
I receive the permission from the original author, to re-license the
files and distribute them under the terms of the GPL. That's so great,
leave all those license jungle behind me.
:-)
On Sat Jun 15 18:25:29 2013 hermann meyer
<brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
Well, no, there is no need to modify, and I would give credits,
already done on the project page, even if I didn't have upload the
files to our repository and will do in the about box as well, when I
upload them.
I just was unsure what the license really mean, and if it is DFSGL
compatible. Now, after investigate some time in research, I know, that
the debain folks itself didn't know that for themselves, but the usual
practice is to accept cc-by since version 3.0 (2.5).
greets
hermann
Am 15.06.2013 17:47, schrieb Nils Gey:
yes. That is possible. You can do
whatever you want with cc by except
not giving credit.
My suggestion assumed you want to be able to modify things and thus
are interested in copyleft.
On Sat Jun 15 17:01:05 2013 hermann meyer
<brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Did anyone here know if the GPL+ v2.0 /v3.0 is compatible with the
> CC-BY v3.0 (unported)
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>
> I only found here
>
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Creative_Commons_Attribution_Share-Alik…
>
>
> that the CC-BY-SA v3.0 is compatible, but no mention of the CC-BY
> v3.0 My understanding is that the CC-BY v3.0 has less restrictions
> then the CC-BY-SA version, but I'm a bit unsure.
>
> Background: I would include some work which is under the CC-BY v3.0
> to my project, which is under the GPL+ v2.0 (or later). I wouldn't
> violate the DFSG, so I would make sure there is no issue at all when
> I'm do so. The Author of the CC-BY v3.0 files is fine with my wishes.
>
> any hints?
> hermann
you can derive a version of the cc-by work, eveb with no
modifications. You just need to give it a different name and credit
the original author. Then you can change the license to a compatible
one. I suggest cc by sa since this adds GPL compatible copyleft.
Changes on your version need to be relicened as ccbysa then while the
original ccby version stays untouched.
This is a general principle: a work which is as freely licensed as cc
by, public domain or compatible can be relicensed as-is with a more
strict one.
Do you believe that it is needed to re-license it, I would prefer to
leave the license untouched, and include it "as it is", if possible.
My impression now, after reading all the posts about this theme on the
debian mailing list is, that they didn't make a difference between
cc-by-sa or just cc-by. They just mention the cc-by-sa on the wikki
page, because it is more restricted, but open enough.
Oh, what a hell, those license jungle. :-(