[cc-community] BY-SA license in the UK has non-waivered collection society fees?
Terry Hancock
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Mon Aug 18 02:08:05 EDT 2008
drew Roberts wrote:
>>>> That seems seriously out of place in a BY-SA license. Fine for
>>>> NC, but this is crazy on first glance from someone sitting
>>>> where I am.
Hmm. I was going to draw your attention again to my earlier remark:
>>> OTOH, "SA" "expressly grants" rights to reuse the work
>>> commercially. So this would basically restrict anything that
>>> isn't granted by that part of the license.
>>>
>>> So maybe it isn't as far reaching as it sounds?
And point out that, if so, this was exactly the sort of thing you've
been pushing for on-list for some time.
However, I studied the text for a bit of this (By-SA 2.0/UK) and the NC
variant (By-NC-SA 2.0/UK), and I don't think it's true. It's more like
clause 2.5 was an accidental hold-over from the NC version, which was
left in by accident. (?!?)
> Nah, this makes it non-Free and to my mind, makes the various SA
> ports non-alike and incompatible. I need serious clarification I
> think. If this is, in fact, the way it seems to my first reading, I
> have serious problems with the UK port and don't like people being
> able to make derivataves of my works that I release under a port that
> has the waiver under the UK port.
IMHO, it definitely disagrees with the sense of the SA, and the other
ports of it, unless I am misreading it.
The good news is that someone who released under this license has
expressly allowed you to convert to a later unported or other locale
By-SA license. Thus, the waiver is removable if you derive from this
work. So, you need not fear using this material in your own mixes.
I was going to say that your work can't be converted into this license
if you used the unported version. However, this is not true for versions
2.0 or 2.5, which both allow you to release derivatives under:
"a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License
Elements as this License"
(You can use an _earlier_ alternate jurisdiction license!)
This loophole was fixed in 3.0, which now says:
"a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license
version) that contains the same License Elements as this License"
I never noticed that before. I suppose it was an accidental oversight.
So, anyway, if you want to avoid this possibility, then use a version
3.0 SA license (probably the best recommendation now anyway).
OTOH, as far as I can tell, By-SA 2.0/UK is actually a non-commercial
license, so you could get in trouble if you tried to use the original
(underived) work in a commercial way.
> Wasn't there an effort a while back to have SA "OK"ed by debian?
> Wouldn't this throw a major monkey wrench into that effort?
It would just mean the By-SA 2.0/UK license would be forbidden.
But Debian doesn't actually acknowledge this whole concept of
jurisdictional licenses -- they consider them to be separate licenses,
as I understand things. So if they say "SA is okay" they are really
talking about a particular version and jurisdiction. It's the 3.0
version license that they'd be concerned with now.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-community
mailing list