On 01.04.2017 01:39, Sam Kuper wrote:
On 31/03/2017, Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
On 31.03.2017 23:38, Sam Kuper wrote:
On 31/03/2017, David Hendricks david.hendricks@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Sam Kuper sam.kuper@uclmail.net wrote:
Also, to further address Patrick's point above about marketing material: it is important that the provenance of information about Coreboot can be established. This is a reputational matter. That means it is important that people should not legally be able to misrepresent Coreboot contributors' views, etc,
Both CC-BY and CC-BY-SA have "no endorsement" clauses
Yes, but because CC BY imposes no restrictions on *second*-derivative works,
[...] I'm not convinced. Relicensing adapted work under different conditions would require the explicit permission by the copyright holder.
No, it wouldn't. That's what makes CC BY different from CC BY-SA.
So it changes copyright itself? We should stop this. IANAL, and I sup- pose you aren't either.
I appreciate that you started this discussion. Having a license for our documentation is really something we should have paid more attention to. Discussing implications of particular licenses, however, is OT here. If you really doubt the usefulness of CC BY, please take that to CC.
(And I think you mean "licensing" rather than "relicensing", assuming we are both talking about the first time that the *adapted work* is licensed to the public.)
No, I meant relicensing. If you license adapted work you "relicense" the parts which you don't have the copyright for.
And I can't find that permission in CC BY.
See, especially, §1(a), §1(c), §1(h), §3(b), §3(d), and §4(b): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
Seriously, I ask for a single thing and you want me to search the answer in six places?
Nico