[cc-licenses] derivatives and source
invernomuto at paranoici.org
Sun Apr 15 11:15:30 EDT 2012
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:23:00 -0400 zotz at 100jamz.com wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:11:42 +0200, Francesco Poli
> <invernomuto at paranoici.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:13:21 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:
> >> On Monday 09 April 2012 04:58:37 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > I don't think the GNU GPL lacks any useful "protection" (whatever that
> >> > may mean) for photos or images. Hence I respectfully disagree with your
> >> > concerns.
> >> You may not think so, but it does. As has been discussed at great length on
> >> these lists for years. BY-SA 3.0 lacks the same protection
> > [...]
> >> Go back and do the research on the lists instead
> >> of making such comments. Then you will at least know what it may mean.
> > It would save me a great amount of time, if you could provide one or
> > two links to previous message(s) where your arguments are summarized.
> > It would be really appreciated.
> And it would probably take me as much time as it would save you. So I
> am going to do something else for now.
> On The Need For A Stronger Copyleft For BY-SA 4.x
> Stronger Attribution-Share Alike For Photos & Illustrations
> Hopefully that will get the ball rolling for you.
blog entries are perfectly acceptable, as long as they summarize the
point you are trying to make.
I would like to make this clear: I was asking for links to mailing list
messages, *just* because *you* mentioned previous mailing list
discussions, *not* because *only* mailing list messages are acceptable!
> I will try and find time in the next few weeks to do the research into
> the mail archives and post the results in a new blog post.
No need to do that, as long as you think the two cited blog entries
summarize your arguments adequately...
So, let's come to the issue under discussion.
It seems to me that the scenario you describe (for instance, the
hypothetical CD-anthology of night-themed CC-by-sa-v3.0-licensed songs)
may actually happen.
I am not sure that the same would happen with GPL-licensed works,
though (for instance, for an hypothetical CD-anthology of night-themed
GPLv2-licensed or GPLv3-licensed songs).
Please (re-)read Section 2 of the GNU GPL v2 (especially clause 2b and
the clarifications at the end of Section 2):
| the intent is to
| exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
| collective works based on the Program.
| In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
| with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
| a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
| the scope of this License.
The GNU GPL v3 is maybe even clearer on this front; please review
Section 5 of the GNU GPL v3 (especially clause 5c and the
clarifications at the end of Section 5):
| A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
| in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
| "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
| used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
| beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
| in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
| parts of the aggregate.
It seems to me that the line drawn by the GNU GPL is the "mere
aggregation" one: if what you are doing is mere aggregation (or
"aggregate", if you prefer the GPLv3 terminology), then the GPL license
of one of the included works does not contaminate the rest (otherwise
it would fail to meet the Debian Free Software Guideline #9); if
instead it's a collective work that is more than mere aggregation, then
the whole must be licensed under the terms of the GPL.
I am convinced that this is the right line to draw: a strong copyleft,
but not something that would contaminate unrelated works (otherwise it
would be non-free).
In summary, maybe the CC-by-sa copyleft could be strengthened a bit on
this front, or maybe not.
But, in my own opinion, it should *not* get stronger than the copyleft
of the GNU GPL, or otherwise it would become really overreaching and
> Related / possibly off topic posts:
I must confess that I haven't (yet?) found the time to read the other
possibly off topic links that you provided... :-(
> all the best,
Bye and thanks for clarifying.
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20120415/4b0aa296/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the cc-licenses