[cc-licenses] Compatibility workshop : FAL, CC by-sa
daniel.carrera at zmsl.com
Wed Nov 16 12:02:43 EST 2005
>>I read the FAL, but I am not a lawyer.
> Nither am I !
> Yes, indeed! don't be afraid of reading the whole FAL's legal code.
I'm not. I always read the full legal code of the licenses I use :)
>>2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY
> 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)
>>- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the
>>originals (original and subsequent).
I think this is a requirement that's not in the Creative Commons. So
this would be a potential incompatibility.
>>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.
> ... only the copies of a work are allowed to be modified.
I see. So it looks like the FAL was written with non-digital artwork in
mind. Like, say you take a photograph and make it FAL. I can use a
photocopy of your photograph and modify that copy. But I can't modify
Alright, fair enough. But how would this affect digital work? How do you
distinguish between "original" and "copy"? When you send me a photograph
by email, your computer makes a copy and sends it to me. When I save it,
my computer makes another copy. When you open the photograph, your
computer makes a copy and puts it in RAM.
In the digital world, everything is a copy.
How would the FAL deal with a digital work? (this is my primary area of
At the same time, I can see how the origial vs copy distinction is
important for a physical object. It may be difficult to write a license
that can reasonably apply to both digital and physical art. But I think
it's good to try (consider, for example, that I take a digital picture
and print it, now it's physical; or I see a physical work of art and
take a digital picture of it).
> - 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.
That does sound complicated.
>>>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.
That sounds great.
> 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.
The first item is that you find the CC licenses confusing. I don't
understand how that is about freedom. Note, I'm not saying that this
item is not important. I know it's important that we understand the
licenses we use.
In any event, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions.
I feel I understand the FAL much better now.
From my current understanding, I think I would use the FAL for physical
works and the BY-SA for digital works. But that's just an opinion.
/\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
\/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were
/ were severely inconvenienced.
More information about the cc-licenses