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,
Please find a quote for that. I'm not convinced. Relicensing adapted work under different conditions would require the explicit permission by the copyright holder. And I can't find that permission in CC BY.
Nico
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.
(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.)
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
Regards.
-
Nico Huber -
Sam Kuper