[cc-licenses] CC Response re: Proposed FDL one-way compatibility wording
rob at robmyers.org
Tue Dec 20 10:38:38 EST 2005
On 17 Dec 2005, at 00:49, Mia Garlick wrote:
> I have attempted to distill the main arguments and concerns (that
> were not necessarily fully address by list members themselves) in
> the attached table and then included a specific response to each
> one that hopefully address each of them.
Thank you for this very clear and informative document.
Some comments, numbered after the sections they refer to:
1. Although BY-SA and the FDL both use copyleft, they have been
written with very different aims in mind and this is reflected in
their non-copyleft features. BY-SA is a remix culture license with
attribution added, so it has the group attribution and attribution
URL provisions. The FDL is a free software manual license that allows
personal opinions to be attached, so it has the print run and
invariant section provisions. A user can therefore do or require
things under each license that they cannot under the other and that
will be lost in translation between the licenses. And each license
makes different demands of its users. These are incompatibilities,
and even if they do not amount to legal incompatibility they may
amount to incompatibility of effect.
2. Multi-licensing seems to be covered by this proposal from Lessig:
But that has its own problems. BBC-CA is not compatible with BY-SA or
the FDL because it is both non-commercial and geographically limited.
As a license fee payer, I would prefer CC to publicly criticise the
BBC for not choosing BY-SA and pressure them to correct this mistake
rather than working to make BY-SA compatible with the CA licence or
encouraging people to use BBC-CA.
3. I am very interested in this new FSF document license. Would CC be
willing to wait for the FSF to release a draft of this license and
having it as the target for BY-SA compatibility? I feel quite
strongly that this is worth considering.
Invariant Sections are *designed* for controversial opinions. :-) The
FSF says :
"The idea of invariant sections is that they give you a way to
express nontechnical personal opinions about the topic.
The classical example of an invariant nontechnical section in a free
manual is the GNU Manifesto"
Criticism can be added under BY-SA, but it can be removed in
derivatives. Under the FDL, criticism can be added but made such that
it cannot be removed. This is an important difference from BY-SA. And
fair use for critique or review does not reproduce the effects of BY-
6. Lessig's meta-licensing proposal (see 2.) would lead to poems
being placed under the FDL.
People will not always choose a license to best contribute to the
commons or to make re-use of work easy. Some people will mis-use
license features to gain the best commercial advantage or to cause
mischief, and we must consider such "exploits" when discussing licenses.
7. The differences between FDL and BY-SA may be less important than
compatibility is from a moral viewpoint, or it may be that the
negative practical effects of these differences will be less than the
positive practical effects of compatibility. But either of these
cases require strong argument as to why the price of negative effects
is worth paying.
And a question:
What is CC's position on the moral implications of allowing
derivatives of existing BY-SA work to be placed under the FDL (or the
new FSF license) by virtue of the derivative upgrade clause in the
2.x licenses? (Unless I have misunderstood this as well, in which
case I apologise).
More information about the cc-licenses