[cc-community] BY-SA license in the UK has non-waivered collection society fees?

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Aug 18 08:42:59 EDT 2008


On Monday 18 August 2008 02:08:05 Terry Hancock wrote:
> 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.

For some reason, I am having a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what 
you are getting at here. It may just be that I am being dense or not 
attentive enough.
>
> 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. (?!?)

I am not so sure... I will comment more below.
>
> > 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.

We agree here.
>
> 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.

Right. But you could not use it in any fashion where performance rights would 
be due... (Is that right?)
>
> 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"

Are you sure that this is not the same thing expressed differently? Is your 
reading of this latter version saying that you can't release your derivative 
under the license of another jurisdiction? I really can't see it being that 
if that is indeed your reading as that would prevent using works from 
multiple jurisdictions in the same derivative... Right? 
>
> 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).

Yup, except where you use a site that doesn't yet have that option.
>
> 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.

Here is the promised comment from above...

Actually, I think you can use it in any commercial way that would not cause 
performance royalties to come due.

And I just went back to read it again and I see you may indeed be correct and 
I mistaken.

So, can someone from cc legal please clear this up? Is this 2.5 section on the 
uk by-sa in there by mistake?
>
> > 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

all the best,

drew


More information about the cc-community mailing list