On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:04:03 +0200
hermann meyer wrote:
> Am 15.06.2013 19:09, schrieb hermann meyer:
You didn't even need the permission. That is what I wrote at first: CC-by implies that you can relicense the work with a more strict license at any time. From cc-by-sa over GPL up to closed source. As long as you keep the authors name around.
Since I don't know the actual code/object/thing we are talking about you might have stepped in the jungle yourself now:
If that work is a binary work like audio data then the GPL is the wrong license. GPL is all about source code and its binary form. You can't simply redifine other data as source code and then say "the rest is GPL".
If the original work was already fitting for CC-by (and not a mislicensed piece of code) then CC-by-sa might be much more appropriate, since it is the binary-data equivalent of the GPL.
In any case and bottom line: All that matters not if you don't modify.
Linux-audio-dev mailing list