15 Jun
2013
15 Jun
'13
6:25 p.m.
Am 15.06.2013 17:47, schrieb Nils Gey:
On Sat Jun 15 17:01:05 2013 hermann meyer
<brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
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. :-(
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.