On Apr 11, 2012 12:45 AM, "Sarah" slimvirgin@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A license change doesn't mean the original license has been revoked.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