[cc-licenses] Aggregation and Stronger SA
bydosa at davidchart.com
Sat Apr 14 00:40:18 EDT 2012
On 2012/04/12, at 7:23, <zotz at 100jamz.com> <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> Stronger Attribution-Share Alike For Photos & Illustrations
It's not really about photographs and illustrations, is it. It's about rights in aggregations.
I think I see your point.
Let's take the CD example first.
This does seem to be a problem.
Let me take a first stab at this one.
Section 1 - Definitions
Aggregation means assembling the Licensed Work and one or more separate works into a collective whole. An Aggregation is not an Adaptation. An Aggregation may include works that are not licensed under this Public License, but you may not Share an Aggregation unless you have a license to Share each of its component works.
Aggregation Pattern means the selection, arrangement, and presentation of works in an Aggregation, excluding the works themselves.
Section 3 - Conditions (ShareAlike)
If you Share an Aggregation, you must release the Aggregation Pattern under the terms of one of the following:
(same terms as the current Adaptations clause)
This blocks the CD case. The CD contains nothing but the BY-SA works, and their selection and arrangement is the Aggregation Pattern, and thus licensed as BY-SA.
If I put ARR photographs with BY-SA text, then if someone pulls the photographs out, they can distribute the text.
In general, this means that anyone who has the right to distribute all of the component works of an Aggregation that includes at least one BY-SA work also has the right to distribute the Aggregation as a whole, and to make Adaptations of the Aggregation. This strikes me as fundamentally the right level of copyleft for aggregations.
This does *not* solve the photographs case. I can put BY-SA photographs with ARR text, and the ARR text does not become BY-SA. I can't protect the layout of my book, but people do have to strip the text out if they want to distribute it. However, my initial feeling is that this is the right answer. If the text is not an Adaptation of the images, publishing it with the images should not pull it into the copyleft clause. If the text *is* an Adaptation of the images, then this is already covered by the license, so there is no problem.
In any case, I suggest this as a way to make the 4.0 copyleft a bit stronger.
More information about the cc-licenses