Auria {l Wrote}:Wolfs {l Wrote}:Hmm, AFAIK CC BY-SA 2.0 allows licensing derivative works under CC BY-SA 3.0, which would be okay. So it should be possible to use any CC BY 2.0 and CC BY-SA 2.0 (or later) textures in a track that is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, or am I wrong?
Hmm I'm not a lawyer so I don't know :/ anyone can find the exact sentences in the license that say that?
Unfortunately I am not a lawyer either
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.png)
. But section 4b (in
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode) says "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License,
a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license [...]".
A "Derivative Work" is defined as "a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License". This sounds like that a track that uses a texture under CC BY-SA 2.0 or a texture that has been extracted from a image licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (which I often did for the textures in this track) would be a derivative work and thus can be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
And since you can license a work based on a work which is licensed under CC BY 2.0 under CC BY-SA 2.0, it should be in turn possible to license it also under CC BY-SA 3.0.
But like I said, I am no lawyer
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.png)
.