Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 15, 2006 03:53 AM
"For example, wouldn't using a copyleft license like the GNU GPL or the Creative Commons BY-SA mean that the author grants you permission to copy their work to some other place, then modify it so that it says exactly the opposite of the original intent?"
Indeed, but they can do this to you by misquoting in any case. Or do you mean they can pass off the modified work as yours and not as their derivative?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Some thoughts for them.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2006 03:53 AMIndeed, but they can do this to you by misquoting in any case. Or do you mean they can pass off the modified work as yours and not as their derivative?
You mean like this:
<a href="http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123" title="ourmedia.org">http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123</a ourmedia.org>
which is mine btw and carries a BY-SA licence.
Or like this:
<a href="http://ccmixter.org/media/tags/attribution" title="ccmixter.org">http://ccmixter.org/media/tags/attribution</a ccmixter.org>
all of those tracks are simple BY which suffers like BY-SA from the same weakness you propose.
I don't agree that your worries should prevent me and others from releasing BY-SA.
And in the case of public broadcasting which seeks public funding, why should the public not have copyleft rights to the works?
all the best,
drew
#