[cc-community] "Games, 3d printing, and functional content" 4.0 wiki page
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Jan 5 19:00:29 EST 2012
On Thursday 05 January 2012 15:50:54 Alan Cox wrote:
> > 1. It's possible to write a license that would clearly preserve the
> > freedom to bundle with other works.
> If they are bundled it's not a matter for copyright. You can write a
> copyright license giving extra rights to further narrow bundling v
> derivative work and thus allow more clarity about what can be done.
> > You're thinking about this too much like a computer programmer. We only
> > have to draw one absolute line, and that line is making sure that the
> > work will bundle with other separate works without any issue. If the
> > "what can
> The line in question is defined by the law. You can draw a further line
> but only one one side of it (giving more rights, not taking away). For a
> lot of the extreme cases some people want to control the copyright licence
> itself isn't able to offer that control.
Yes and no. For instance, I think it may be possible and am suggesting that to
strengthen BY-SA in the cases where the use in another work is not audio in
video that, rather than carving out multiple case specific exceptions like is
done with syncing, we restrict the license to freely copy in cases where the
work will be used in another copyrighted work where that work, or other
sub-parts of that work are non-Free.
So, in the case of mere-aggregation or bundling, a Free work and a non-Free
work could sit side by side on the same media or web server and that would be
ok. But in the case where there was a copyright due to the work that used the
BY-SA work, using copyright to deny the right to copy would be used unless
that work and all of its parts were Free. The parts would not all have to be
BY-SA or even copyleft. The work containing the BY-SA work would have to be
BY-SA if possible, failing that, some other copyleft if possible, failing
that, permissive Free.
Actual derivatives or adaptations could still be required to be BY-SA. (Unless
this needs to be tweaked somehow to handle the proposed (A)GPL mixing being
proposed as well.
> > I get away with that goes against the spirit of the license?" line is a
> > bit blurred, so be it. As people have mentioned in the past, the GPL has
> > exactly the same kind of issues, and yet people don't dismiss it as
> > invalid.
> Indeed and the GPL actually does several bits of the line drawing. It
> defines certain kinds of distribution of items together to avoid the grey
> areas. It has a systems library exception to fix up another very grey
> area and complexity. In the LGPL case it draws the line a long way from
> the legal one to achieve its goals.
all the best,
More information about the cc-community