[cc-community] CC-BY-SA for Jailhouse Lawyers?
zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Nov 25 14:15:20 EST 2011
On Friday 25 November 2011 13:52:16 Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:07 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > I basically wish NC was never a part of cc myself. What I am talking
> > about though is NC-SA where the NC condition is *waived* if the work is
> > used in/with a BY-SA work.
> With this scheme you give permission for your work to be used in an
> adaptation offered under BY-NC-SA, which I doubt you want.
No, it is not what I want but I would be prepared to live with that if it
meant that the photos I would rather were BY-SA could not be used in ARR for
profit books, magazines, newspapers and the like without my OK. If I am
correct, it would let my BY-SA photos be used in BY-SA books, magazines,
newspapers and the like without needing my OK.
> > I am looking for a way to get a stronger BY-SA for
> > photos and other graphical works until CC either fixes the SA license or
> > makes a new stronger SA license.
> You could state what you consider to be an adaptation, as a licensor.
> I've seen this (licensor statement regarding key license condition)
> done by some NC licensors, and by GPL licensors, though with each
> always by licensors who want to use copyright to suppress as many uses
> as possible, while still using the license in question. In other
> words, perhaps disingenuously and without a solid legal rationale.
I sort of hate that way of doing things as it seems to make for multiple,
non-compatible BY-SA works.
> Whatever makes you comfortable. ;->
Nothing in this makes me comfortable. I would rather a proper fix but am
looking at alternatives in the mean time.
> I'm sure you remember, but FWIW, what constitutes an adaptation (or
> ought to in future versions) has been discussed many times on this
> list and nearby, probably going back at least to late 2003/early 2004
> 2.0 discussions on cc-licenses (it is mildly a/be-musing looking back
> at those; so many of the discussions are really similar to what still
> comes up; would be interesting if anyone were to summarize neutrally
> what has been learned regarding each in the last 8 years) including
> lots prior to the Wikimedia migration to BY-SA, leading to the
> pertinent point 3 of
I certainly do remember. I have tried to get an actual discussion going on a
number of occasions concerning possible triggers other than derivation to let
this work but I can't seem to remember getting very far.
> Please participate in the upcoming 4.0 process if you care one way or
> the other, or better yet, have persuasive evidence that one way or
> another will be better for the commons.
Is having these discussions in cc-community not count as participating in the
upcoming 4.0 process? If not, what does count?
> As some of this thread seems to concern what is possible with a public
> license, rather than how BY-SA actually operates -- I always find it
> curious to look at how licenses with a longer history than CC's
> address any particular issue. For example, the GPL's distinction
> between covered compilations and mere aggregation -- phrased in terms
> of programs, but I'd bet in spirit translatable to any sort of work.
I think it would be a good enough place to start if we could look at how music
gets protected in movies and videos in the BY-SA world and consider how to
give other works that same level of copyleft protection where sync rights do
not come into play.
all the best,
More information about the cc-community