[cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl
adam at xs4all.nl
Mon Jul 2 13:54:37 EDT 2007
ok...so...um....the CC and FSF are helping who exactly with license
interoperability? I really get that monty python feeling where the
factions are spitting on each other in the arena....
will be see two 'prosumers' sitting on a bench, one asking "is that an
'organisation for free licences'?" and the other replying "no! thats a
free license organsation!... wankers!"
and i won't even get started on asking questions about the FDL...i've
already made up my mind on that one...
On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 18:36 +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> (I am not CC, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
> adam hyde wrote:
> > It would seem the GPL would not be 'compatible' under these terms as the
> > GPL does not explicitly permit: "the relicensing of derivatives of works
> > made available under that license under a particular Creative Commons
> > license"
> That is correct.
> > The gpl does not do this. However, how does the CC-GPL fit into this
> > picture? :
> > http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl
> > Its the GPL with a CC wrapper...is the CC-GPL considered to be living
> > within the CC family of licenses? If so, then the CC-GPL is 'compatible'
> > and the question is answered.
> Ignore CC-GPL for the purpose of this discussion, that is just CC trying
> to explain the GPL to people. It's a very good idea (CC-FDL anybody?)
> but can be confusing.
> > is there anyone that can clarify this?
> > Just to retour...My specific question is:
> > Can content under the CC-BY-SA (3.0) be distributed under the GPL? ie.
> > Is the GPL or 'CC-GPL' a 'similar' or 'compatible' license as per the
> > license statement :
> > "you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a
> > compatible license."
> > anyone want to make me a happy camper with a categorical yes or no? ;)
> Categorically: no.
> The GPL is not compatible with BY-SA, and is unlikely to be declared
> See above. ;-)
> If you are the original licensor you could dual-license under BY-SA and
> GPL, but that's a very bad idea.
> > The reason _why_ this is an interesting question for me is that
> > documentation about free software is often written in CC BY-SA. If this
> > material can be then distributed under the GPL then the docs could be
> > distributed with source code without causing developers extra license
> > headaches.
> You can distribute BY-SA material with GPL material. The FDL was
> designed to be applied to documentation distributed with GPL-ed
> software, and the principle is the same. This is aggregation, and is
> fine under the GPL.
> So a GPL-licensed piece of software with BY-SA documentation should be
> absolutely fine. Unless it breaks the rules of a particular distro (e.g.
> - Rob.
'free as in media'
More information about the cc-licenses