#license #mastoquestion is there a license I can upgrade CC 2.0 to?
@screwtape hmm more details of your concerns? away from cc vs. up to 4.0?
@brhfl Well yeah, I was wondering if I could just upgrade it to 4.0, and also whether it's compatible to AGPLv3+ for example.
@screwtape gotcha! i'm not a lawyer so... y'know, grain of salt, but i can tell you my understanding. cc licenses are irrevocable. but, as the rights-holder, you are free to 'rerelease' such a work under a more- or less-permissive license. you can freely attempt to scrub all instances of the earlier version if you so desire. but the irrevocability means that if someone has a copy of the version that was marked cc 2.0 out there, _that is still binding_.
@screwtape essentially, as long as there's a single copy of each out in the wild, you have two otherwise identical products, each with separate licenses. cc sorta kinda outlines what goes into upgrading at https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines#Logistics_of_applying_4.0, but there isn't much to it because again you're just sort of... doing a new one.
@screwtape i _think_ it would be similar with gpl licenses (apologies i know much less about agpl) but there are (or have been in the past) compatibility concerns that i'm ill-equipped to speak on, though looking for guides like https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility_analysis:_GPL might be a starting point.
@brhfl thanks. Basically I'm referencing something from 2008 that's under cc 2.0, so it's good to hear that it won't become-revoked, and sounds like I can either issue my own derivation under cc 4.0 or agplv3+ (since I'm not affecting the license of the original work).
@screwtape ah yeah. slightly different concerns if you're not the original rights-holder, but my understanding is they try to keep things pretty compatible version-to-version so that things can be relatively future-proof. definitely look over this - https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detailed_attribution_comparison_chart - as you'd need to adhere to 2.0's attribution requirements when attributing the source.