[cc-community] CC-BY content usable under GFDL

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon May 5 21:04:54 EDT 2008


On Monday 05 May 2008 19:58:46 Greg London wrote:
> > To go all esoteric for a moment, isn't it
> > conceivable to have a copyleft with
> > the option to modify in ways that do not
> > negate the four freedoms?
>
> It's conceivable. But that isn't what defines copyleft.
>
> What defines copyleft is the idea that the work and
> some subset of its derivatives are placed under the
> same license as the original, and that license may
> or may not have any particular restriction.
>
> different copylefts offer different types of protection.
>
> GNU-GPL protects against patents, DRM, tivoization,
> and has a source code requirement. But it only applies
> it's copyleft-ness to derivatives that are *distributed*.
>
> The GNU-LGPL is exactly the same, exect it only applies
> it's copyleftness to works which are functionally
> related to the original work. compiling doesn't always
> make a derivative in GNU-LGPL, but it does in GNU-GPL.
>
> The apple open source license applies it's copyleft-ness
> to *all* derivatives, distributed or not.
>
> The CC-ShareAlike license doesn't have a patent clause
> and doesn't have a source code requirement.
>
> It was these sorts of differences I was trying to
> objectively quantify in "Libre Labyrinth"
> http://www.greglondon.com/libre/index.htm
>
> > aren't we making efforts / exploring ideas
> > to allow movement between essentially
> > compatible Free Copyleft licenses?
>
> The OpenHardware community would be best served by
> something like the Apple license, something that
> extends to all derivatives, whether distributed
> or not. If there were some sort of clause that said
> you can apply the Apple license, or any other copyleft
> licence, then someone who wanted to abuse the community
> work would create a derivative, apply the CC-SA license
> instead, wouldn't have to worry about the copyleft-ness
> because he wouldn't distribute the work, only silicon,
> and he wouldn't have to worry about source code requirements
> or any of the other restrictions in the Apple license.
>
> Being able to choose which copyleft license you get
> to apply to a derivative would be about the worst
> possible thing a license could do. Just pick the weakest
> license.

Well, no, not really. Why would we have to try this in such a foolish manner. 
Is that the way suggested in prior discuccions on the lists here?

It may be that what we want is not possible. It may be that it will only be 
possible with a change of law. It may be that after a long hard road, we will 
settle on a license which does enough for everyone's needs and we have the 
wisdom to adopt one license to overcome this weakness in copyleft licenses. 
We shall see.

I doub't I would choose one which had the weakness you suggest though Greg. I 
am not that interested in getting abused.

all the best,

drew


More information about the cc-community mailing list