[cc-community] Fwd: cc-licenses post from osm at inbox.org requires approval
ml at creativecommons.org
Wed Jan 4 23:26:44 EST 2012
Forwarding cc-licenses queued messages that don't explicitly address
4.0 to cc-community.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony <osm at inbox.org>
To: Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de>
Cc: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:00:14 -0500
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Use cases for cc by-sa compatibility with GPL
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 30. Dezember 2011, 21:32:43 schrieb Anthony:
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de>
>> > Does usage under GPL actually create an additional restriction, if you
>> > consider the cc by-sa work be its own source?
>> My concern was with CC-BY-SA works which are not their own source,
>> which would be, I think, most of them.
> As of GPLv3, the source is the “preferred form for making modifications”. If
> only the cc by-sa version exists (available to the public), then that’s the
> only form to make modifications.
That would be a huge loophole in the GPL, if you could get away with
not making your source public, by saying that you're only required to
make public the form of the work which is already public.
> GPL does not care if you let someone review your code in libre office (with red
> marks everywhere :) ). Just the final plain text source code counts.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If I take an SVG
image and make a PNG out of it, it seems obvious to me that the SVG is
the source, not the PNG. If I take an SVG image which is under GPL,
modify it, make a PNG out of it, and distribute the PNG, I have to
(offer to) distribute the SVG, not just the PNG.
>> You say "GPL has the same goal as cc by-sa". I say no, it absolutely
>> does not. Even the FSF says that its license recommendations "do not
>> concern artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional
>> or educational) purpose".
> That’s a political statement, not a legal one. And I think that they are wrong
> with it.
> Where does the goal of the GPL differ from cc by-sa?
> I don’t mean the legal implementation. I mean the intention.
Whose intention? I assume you mean the intention of the FSF, as
compared to the intention of CC. The FSF's intention and philosophy
is quite clearly very different from that of CC.
>> It's not even clear how you *could* apply the GPL to certain CC-BY-SA
>> works. What is the "source" for a photograph?
> You only have the image file, so you just modify the image file. That’s the
> source, then.
Why do you assume I only have the image file? Why do you assume I'm
even talking about a file? Maybe I'm talking about a printed
photograph. What if the file is shrunk from the original?
> For artistic works, the distributed version usually is much easier to edit
> than for programs, so it can be used as source.
That depends quite a lot on the type of work.
> If you have a thumbnail and an image and you change the thumbnail by first
> changing the image and recreating the thumbnail automatically, then the image
> logically is the source for the thumbnail.
And if the source is a 19 gig xml file and the image is a 19K PNG file?
More information about the cc-community