On Dec 1, 2007 7:19 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:

Gregory Maxwell writes:

...

The CC-By-SA text, which you quoted incompletely, is fairly unambiguous: it even goes out of its way to point out that you are subject to the copyleft when you combine covered sound or video to create a new work

What is problematic is that the Creative Commons has advised people with advice that is at odds with the license.

This is not legally problematic, however it may be a problem for some folks otherwise. The plain language of the CC-BY-SA text would trump anyone's attempt to define the license in a way that is at odds with the text. No court would rule otherwise, even if Larry Lessig showed up and argued the other side.

I should add that I don't think speculation about the motives or thought processes of Creative Commons folks tells me much. After a while, I just look at the plain language of the license in question and make my decisions based on that language.

As Greg already noted, motivations/intentions matter a great deal when the license has an open ended "or later versions" clause. If a court found that the license actually meant something other than what the Creative Commons had intended, then they could simply write a new version.

-Robert A. Rohde