[cc-licenses] Aggregation and Stronger SA
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Apr 16 10:09:42 EDT 2012
On Saturday 14 April 2012 00:40:18 David Chart wrote:
> On 2012/04/12, at 7:23, <zotz at 100jamz.com> <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > Stronger Attribution-Share Alike For Photos & Illustrations
> > http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2011/04/strongerbysaforphotos.html
> It's not really about photographs and illustrations, is it. It's about
> rights in aggregations.
It is about rights anywhere where copyright offers those rights, not just in
aggregations unless aggregations is the only place copyrights come into play.
> 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.
I disagree strongly that this is the right level. I also think you are missing
the distinction between protecting copyleft in these cases and protecting
Freedom in these cases.
I say make all parts of the aggregation Free. All parts to not have to be
copyleft or under the same copyleft license. Just under some acceptable (i.e.
truly) Free license. The Aggregation Pattern as you call it has to be under
the same copyleft license if possible and an acceptable Free license if not.
> 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.
The above would solve the photographs case. The text would not have to be
BY-SA but it would have to be Free. That is the level of protection I would
like for my photos.
I think it is the level I could get today were I to license my photos BY-NC-SA
with a commercial waiver for use in Free Works.
> 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,
I don't care if it is an adaptation or derivative of my photos. My photos are
being aggregated/packaged/bundled with outher copyrighted works in such a way
that those other copyrights are being used / can be used in the future to
restrict my Freedom. If I can legally prevent this while not messing up those
operating in the Free World, I would like to do this.
> 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
I say that is not enough stronger and we can make it stronger still without
adverse effects for those wanting to operate in the Free World.
Those not wanting to operate in the Free World are proponents of requesting
permissions from copyright holders for use and can do so in this case as
well. They presumably think this is a ***good*** thing.
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses