[cc-licenses] Compatibility workshop : FAL, CC by-sa
Isabelle Vodjdani
vodjdani.isabelle at numericable.fr
Wed Nov 16 11:46:49 EST 2005
Oups! sorry for the copy-paste dictionnary link, my english is so awfull
that I have to check out a lot of words in a dictionnary.
I re-send the mail without the odd disturbing link
Isabelle
Isabelle Vodjdani a écrit :
>Daniel Carrera a écrit :
>
>
>
>>Hello Isabelle,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Hello Daniel,
>
>
>
>>I read the FAL, but I am not a lawyer.
>>
>>
>>
>Nither am I !
>
>Let me first precise that my answer below, is personnal (though indebted
>to many talks with copyleft_attitude's actors), while the summary of the
>meeting I have previously posted in the begenning of this thread was the
>result of a collective work (collective in the meaning of the french
>law, when different contributions are not distinguishable).
>
>
>
>>So I need some help understanding
>>it. It wasn't very clear to me what the FAL says. Does the FAL require
>>that modifications to the work be FAL? I couldn't find that on the license.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Yes, indeed! don't be afraid of reading the whole FAL's legal code. It's
>a quite short text that leaves enough room in the brain to let one think
>about it's meaning.
>
>in the FAL you can read this :
>.
>
>
>
>>2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY
>>
>>You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and
>>subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out
>>in article 2.2 , in the event of distribution (or representation) of
>>the modified copy. The author of the original may, if he wishes, give
>>you the right to modify the original under the same conditions as the
>>copies
>>
>>
>
>So, it's clear that the conditions that you have to respect are
>specified just above "in the article 2.2" :
>
>
>
>>2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)
>>
>>You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not,
>>whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if
>>you observe all the following conditions:
>>- attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate
>>precisely where the license can be found,
>>- specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
>>- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the
>>originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may,
>>if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original
>>under the same conditions as the copies.
>>
>>
>>
>I hope you get it now.
>
>
>
>>Can you compare the FAL with the BY-SA?
>>
>>
>>
>This is the subjet of the first workshop and it's a heavy task we have
>to conduct. I have to confess that we tried to do it several times with
>Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, but each time, the job have been leaved
>uncomplete. Nevertheless, these incomplete results have been useful for
>the drafting of the french cc adaptation. But now it's time to wonder
>why is it so hard to carry out such a work in a more complete way ?
>After several attempts, I arrived at the conclusion that though pursuing
>the same goal on the whole, the wording method of the two licenses are
>so heterogeneous that one can hardly get through a precise comparison
>
>
>
>>Can you give us an example of
>>something that would be allowed under one license but not the other?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Yes, in spite of these difficulties, it's possible to underline some
>points that arise questions. For example I can mention that :
>
>- The FAL recognises a distinction between the original and the copy.
>With respect to the moral right, and the requirement for the
>availability of the original work (source) for other uses, only the
>copies of a work are allowed to be modified. The modification of an
>original (let's say a non digital and autographic handwork, a painting
>for example) requires a special authorisation of the originator. Now, if
>you look on the other hand, at the CC legal code, you don't find such a
>distinction; therefore one can understand that the CC licenses allows modifications on original
>autographic works, since the definition of the "work" seems to include
>any kind of medium.
>
>- At the end of 4.a of CC licenses there is a paragraph that let me
>interrogative about the consequences of a partially non attribution
>term. Indeed, the IP allows an author to publish his work anonymously
>and to bring afterwards the proof of his authorship (in which case we
>have a clearly time sequenced sheme), the partially non attribution term
>leaves the possibility of some generations of attributed derivative
>works, and in the same time, other generations of non-attribuded
>derivative works that found their starting point in the context of some
>collective work. The case is so complicated that I even don't know
>whether it has to determine or not a non compatibility indication.
>
>These were two examples, but we have to invistigate more precisely to
>set up a list of all the possible problems in order to resolve the more
>significant differences between the two licenses.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The aim is to be allowed to mix together some works offered under the CC
>>>by-sa with other works offered under the FAL, and then, to put the
>>>resulting derivative work under one of these two licences.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Assuming that BY-SA and FAL are very similar, it would be good to be
>>able to take BY-SA work and make it FAL and take FAL work and make it BY-SA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Shure! it would be a good thing for everyone. This is what we try to
>reach, but if both part don't realy will it, it becomes impossible to
>overcome the numerous problems.
>I suppose that if Melanie Dulong de Rosnay asked us to study such a
>possibility, it's because she observed such a will about cc by+sa users,
>and of course, a lot of FAL users will the same thing.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, there are two obstacles to the compatibility :
>>>
>>>1- the Free Art License dosen't allow one to mix a work ruled by another
>>>License with a work ruled by the FAL (article 7).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Could this change in the future?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Yes, we are seriousely thinking and working about it. Such a term wasn't
>possible 5 years ago, but now that a few number of free licenses are
>well known and adopted by some significant communities of users, we can
>concretely study the conditions and terms of an additional article which
>would allow us to set up a list of compatible licenses.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>2- The CC by-sa dosen't fit into the criteria of freedom as conceived by
>>>the Free Art License :
>>>
>>>The main problems pointed out are :
>>># the fact that the drafting of CC licenses is quite confuse and can
>>>generate some conflictual interpretations
>>># the compatibility between the several national adaptations of CC
>>>licenses means that a compatibility between the FAL and the French CC
>>>by-sa would mean, as well, a compatibility between the FAL and other
>>>national adaptations whose significations and legal consequences are not
>>>clear for us.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I don't understand how those two items relate to freedom. You find the
>>CC licenses confusing and are concerned about the national adaptations.
>>Those are more of practical considerations than an issue of freedom.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Well, the practical considerations are important too, otherwise freedom
>reminds only a nice wish.
>The first item is deeply related to our conception of freedom.
>The second consideration is much more law-technichal but not less important.
>
>Please excuse me if don't have the time to develope more explanations.
>Maybe there will be other opportunities to do it some day.
>For the moment, just think about it...
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>We thus came to the conclusion that the compatibility between the two
>>>licenses required that the CC by-sa should adopt the terms of the FAL.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It may be good to explain what those are.
>>
>>* What does the FAL allow that is prohobited by the BY-SA?
>>* What does the FAL prohibit that is allowed by the BY-SA?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>see above
>
>
>
>>>the FAL ... simplicity of its wording
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>When I read the FAL I found it confusing. In particular, I couldn't
>>understand the conditions under which I am allowed to modify the work
>>(section 2.3). It was obscure to me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>see above
>
>Isabelle
>
>
>
>>Best,
>>Daniel.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>cc-licenses mailing list
>cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>
>
>
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list