[cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license
Rob Myers
rob at robmyers.org
Sun Dec 2 11:29:36 EST 2007
drew Roberts wrote:
> a "copyright arising" concept.
The CC licenses are currently strongly tied to this concept. A "strong
copyleft" would replace it with a concept of "use".
NC already has a concept of use, and has been recommended as a
substitute for BY-SA for photographs to prevent precisely this breaking
of people's expectation of reciprocal use. It would be better to satisfy
this expectation with stronger copyleft than to push NC as the wrong
solution to the wrong problem.
Possibly the collective copyright on the combined works could be used,
or the copyright on the layout (if one exists). We talked about these
possibilities the last time photo licensing came up on cc-licenses.
Failing that the use context can be defined by example.
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> I like all of your points, including the last one, but it is a little
> unclear. I think what you mean is that for "embedded" uses, the
> containing document should have to be under a free license, not
> necessarily a compatible copyleft license. This would address use of
> copyleft images on Wikinews (CC BY), for example.
It would have to be free rather than just CC. Using BY-SA within an NC
or ND context would break reciprocity for example.
> I don't know why yet another class of license would be needed --
> presumably it could be the next version of CC BY-SA.
I personally would much prefer the next BY-SA to be stronger, but if its
effects were different enough from the current license then it could be
legally or politically difficult to still call the license BY-SA.
Gavin Baker wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but there must be a way to make the distinction
> between an item in a database and a photograph on the page of a
> magazine. I think that most users of CC licenses with the SA or ND
> clauses would agree that the clause should work this way.
Since it is possible to charge for the use of photographs as
illustrations and to reserve the ability to do this in commercial
contexts by using the NC licence, I'd say it must be possible.
The other examples I've been asked about more than once are an article
in a magazine, a song on a CD or in a radio show, and a TV show on a TV
channel. At which point would the requriement of a free context stop?
And at which point would this requirement become self-defeating or
exploitative? The limit of copyleft is sometimes a pragmatic issue or a
matter of respecting other people's self-determination.
> P.S. A hearty kudos to everyone who helped make CC/GFDL compatibility
> possible!
Yes!
Er, as long as invariant sections cannot be added to derivatives of
BY-SA works. SFDl/BY-SA would be best.
Terry Hancock wrote:
> The thing is, that as things stand, some producers feel cheated by the
> existing SA, but the changed one would make many consumers feel
> cheated.
Would it? And would any of these consumers feel cheated of anything
other than cheating producers out of a reciprocal right to use work that
benefits from their own?
- Rob.
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list