[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too
mia at creativecommons.org
Mon Feb 12 18:36:44 EST 2007
On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Mia Garlick wrote:
>> a license will not be deemed compatible unless it is reciprocal in
>> recognizing and enabling compatibility. i don't think one can
>> include a "Note" in a legal definition. would this rephrasing allay
>> ""Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed
>> at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses thathas been
>> approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this
>> License, including without limitation because that license: (i)
>> contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect as the
>> License Elements of this License; and, (ii) explicitly permits the
>> relicensing of derivatives of works made available under that license
>> under this License."
> IMHO, your first draft was better. It straightforwardly requires:
> 1) CC approval of the license by publishing it in a particular place
> 2) Reciprocal publishing of a conversion clause by the compatible
> license's steward
> This is important because it makes reciprocity a requirement of both
> stewards in order for the decision to be binding.
i think the amended wording actually makes it clear that CC can only
approve a license that allows reciprocality. consequently, that
timeline isn't wholly accurate — CC would not take the first step of
declaring compatibility with a license that didn't already have
compatibility in it.
> Consider, e.g. the following timeline:
> Date Action Convertable?
> Jan 15, 2008 - CC publishes XAL as "compatible" No
> with XAF's X Arts License (XAL)*
> Feb 15, 2008 - XAF debates CC compatibility No
> Jun 15, 2008 - Radical XAF group rejects CC No
> Oct 15, 2008 - New XAF leadership reopens CC No
> Dec 20, 2008 - XAF declares CC/XAL compatible Yes
> Feb 21, 2009 XAF changes mind, removes CC No?
> from compatibility list
> Mar 23, 2009 XAF changes mind again, adds CC Yes?
> back to compatibility list
> Mar 25, 2009 XAF creates new CC-incompatible Y/N by version?
> XAL version
> etc., etc. Note that this whole time, CC has listed XAL as
> "compatible", but XAL flakes or flip-flops on the issue, determining
> when the license is compatible. Only the reciprocity clause
> protects us
> from XAL reneging on its agreement with CC.
> I think that's a good protection to have.
> One thing I am concerned about is the revocation possibility. How does
> that work out exactly? If compatibility is revoked (by either
> organization), what happens to previously converted works.**
> Does the date of combination of works matter?
> Also how does compatibility interact with the automatic upgrade
this is a good question. i think this and the revocation clause
question has to be answered on a case by case basis. compatibility
can be approved only for a particular license version or it can be
approved for the current and any subsequent license versions. if the
latter is adopted, then there has to be an agreement between the
license stewards that they will maintain the license terms to be
essentially equivalent. otherwise i guess one would have to stop
compatibility at that license version that contained similar terms
and not allow compatibility with later versions...
> XAL 1.0 terms are compatible with By-SA 3.0
> By-SA 3.0 includes auto-upgrade clause
> XAL 1.0 includes auto-upgrade clause
> XAL 1.2 adds "we love DRM" clause, breaking By-SA compatibility
> Derivers break By-SA terms by trivial conversions:
> By-SA 3.0 --> XAL 1.0 --> XAL 1.2
> (Now I can distribute DRM-locked By-SA content in violation of the
> original license)
> (Yes they have to "derive" at each stage, but that could be done with
> very small changes)
> As an opportunity -- this kind of system could *replace* automatic
> upgrade clauses, through using such a published conversion table. This
> could help with some cases, allowing particular versions to be
> converted, but not allowing conversion beyond that version (the
> being compatibility with existing licenses' upgrade clauses).
> Once more than one organization controls the upgrade path, the
> opportunity for loopholes in copyleft becomes large.
> *For anyone wondering, "XAL" is a fictious license or the organization
> promoting it, and I don't mean to imply anything about the reliability
> of any existing organization.
> **By "converted work", of course, I mean a work derived from mixed
> license sources and released under one or the other of the
> Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses