When someone licenses an image they first have to be legally able to do so, if they dont its irrelevant what the license is or what it gets changed to, its invalid and cant be enforced. That also means no matter what we claim the license to have been when we got it its still invalid so we cant host it.
On 11 April 2012 17:50, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
On 04/11/2012 06:45 AM, Sarah wrote:
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
Granting a license means opening a legal door. Granting another license means opening another door, and this is okay. That is called "dual licensing" and the famous example is MySQL software. But irrevocable means you're not allowed to close the first door.
The people who reuse your content based on the first license, must still be allowed to do this. If you try to sue them for reusing your content under a license that you now regret, they are safe because you granted them an irrevocable license.
What we're discussing here is whether Commons should respect people who wish to regret having granted irrevocable licenses. Legally they may (or may not) be able to claim they didn't understand what they were doing. But then Commons could respect such wishes even if there is no legal demand.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l