https://wiki.creativecommons.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Pascal+BoulerieCreative Commons - User contributions [en]2026-04-19T18:44:29ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Talk:Share_Alike&diff=62025Talk:Share Alike2012-12-12T18:01:44Z<p>Pascal Boulerie: SA and Share Rights Alike are difficult acronym and wording...</p>
<hr />
<div>I hope this is the right place to ask for this... Could a paragraph be added to this article to clarify what exactly it means if content is published using a CC license that does '''not''' contain the "SA" clause?<br />
<br />
For example, if content is licensed as CC-BY, can a derivative work be licensed as CC-BY-SA (thus "adding" a clause)? If content is licensed as CC-BY-NC, can a derivative work be licensed as CC-BY-SA (thus also "removing" a clause)?<br />
<br />
The layman reasoning here would be that, because of not explicitely stating that a derivative work needs to use the ''same'' license (=share-alike), it could use a ''similar'' one instead. If this can't be done, then what is the exact additional benefit of making "SA" explicit? -- [[User:CidHighwind|CidHighwind]] 20:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ND and SA in a "BY-NC-ND-SA" licence !? ==<br />
SA and Share Rights Alike are difficult acronym and wording. Actually, some people would misunderstand SA as the fact of sharing the ND without the possibility of making any change... In my opinion, something like "Share Licence Alike" (SLA) ou "Share Rights Alike" (SRA) would be less misleading. It would avoid the occurrence of a non-existing licence "BY-NC-ND-SA"...</div>Pascal Boulerie