[theme-reviewers] Including Creative Commons Attribution Code
emil at themeid.com
Sun Mar 13 22:56:28 UTC 2011
Just got an e-mail from CC, this is what they say about the compatibility:
> From: Nathan Kinkade <nkinkade at creativecommons.org>
> Date: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: GPL
> To: Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com>
> Cc: info at creativecommons.org
> Hi Emil,
> My understanding is that no CC license is compatible with any GPL
> license. Doing a web search for something like "cc gpl compatible"
> should turn up some resources for you.
*Emil Uzelac* | ThemeID | T: 224-444-0006 | Twitter: @EmilUzelac | E:
emil at themeid.com | http://themeid.com
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Mike Little <wordpress at zed1.com> wrote:
> > CC-BY-SA 3.0 is not listed as compatible with the GNU GPL on the GNU site
> > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses)
> > therefore is *not* compatible.
> Doesn't work that way. Compatibility of licenses is a function of the
> wording of those licenses, not because of anything GNU says.
> > Further, CC-BY-SA 2.0, is explicitly stated as *incompatible* with the
> > GPL.
> I am aware of that, however I specifically stated "3.0", not "2.0".
> For example, CC-BY 2.5 was incompatible because of wording issues.
> > It is the attribution requirements in those licences which makes them
> > incompatible with the GNU GPL. "You must attribute the work in the manner
> > specified by the author or licensor", this clause allows an author to
> > restrictions which are incompatible with the GNU GPL.
> This is incorrect. While it's true that that wording is in the "human
> readable" page on creativecommons.org, that is not the actual text of
> the license. You can find the actual license here:
> Any "incompatibility" would have to originate in that legal document,
> not in a mere summary of it, especially one which is factually
> incorrect (the attribution part is not as simplistic as you believe it
> to be).
> Nevertheless, this is a moot discussion.
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the theme-reviewers