Timeline for Software content library license requires "including a valid copyright notice". How does it limit my use?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2020 at 23:38 | comment | added | David | @supercat - I think you could always release your work under any license, but that doesn't give more rights that you had available to pass downstream. You couldn't write a valid license that would allow extraction of the original sound files and provide unlimited distribution because you don't have a sublicense right yourself. In other words, you can write whatever you want in this license and be compliant, but it doesn't mean your end user will get any additional rights. | |
| Nov 8, 2020 at 16:47 | comment | added | supercat | I don't think one would be allowed to release one's work with a license that allowed for arbitrary extraction and use of portions thereof for arbitrary purposes, in ways that would allow for the extraction of the original sound samples and their use in competing music software. | |
| Sep 30, 2016 at 16:45 | vote | accept | rhino | ||
| Sep 30, 2016 at 16:44 | history | edited | David | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 463 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2016 at 16:36 | comment | added | rhino | Thanks! I think it would make sense to incorporate your comment under the other answer to this one, so that people in the future can easily find out the reason for such a requirement. Also, I thought putting a copyright notice on a work and releasing it on a relaxed license were mutually exclusive things, so thanks for clearing that up! | |
| Sep 29, 2016 at 5:10 | history | answered | David | CC BY-SA 3.0 |