On Apr 11, 2012 12:45 AM, "Sarah" <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> 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.
We would not allow a change of mind in the other direction, but
allowing any change implies that we don't, in fact, regard cc licences
as irrevocable.
A license change doesn't mean the original license has been revoked. (On
Flickr or commons)
A work can be simultaneously licensed under multiple CC licenses even if
they have conflicting terms. (e.g. you could a single work under both BY-ND
and BY-NC-SA) That just lets the user/distributor/derivative choose which
license(s) to use the work under.
-Jeremy