On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: > The problem is the issue of providing an "transparant", or freely > editable, copy of the content. This is a problem for both public domain > and the Creative Commons Share-Alike license. Imagine the following > situation, you write a piece of work and publish it under the CC license > in plain text format. Someone else can then come along, republish under > the same license but use an encyrpted or read-only proprietary format Quoth http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode: "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement." Cannot do that. > the public domain is even worse. Not only could someone republish in a > closed, read-only format, but thet could also claim copyright over your > public domain material. This is why copyleft is so important to us. They cannot claim copyright to your public domain material. That would be plagiarism, which is illegal. They can, however, creative a derivative work off your public domain material and claim copyright over that. - Per