[cc-licenses] Aggregation and Stronger SA
rob at robmyers.org
Mon Apr 23 15:21:14 EDT 2012
On 04/23/2012 02:48 AM, zotz at 100jamz.com wrote:
> This part is not talking about a derivative but an aggregate. It seems
> it is only called an aggregate if it is a creative compilation (not a
> mere compilation?) but that the copyright on the aggregate is not used
> to restrict / limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's
> users beyond what the individual works permit.
The GPL defines some of its own terminology...
It is possible to claim a copyright on a "collective work", but the
copyright does not to my knowledge interact with the underlying work.
Copying the underlying works as part of the collective work is of course
the same as copying the individual works and so regulated by copyright....
The GPL v2 drew a hard line between collective works and "mere aggregation":
"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 GPL v3 simply mentions aggregation, and bear in mind that the GPL
broadly regards derivation as modification of code or as linking, which
I wouldn't *personally* compare to curatorship/collection of disparate
works in a collection.
> Some maintain that this would allow a copyrighted compilation of GPL
> works (and BY-SA works if BY-SA were to adopt this language?) with ARR
> works, BY-NC works, etc. and it would be an aggregate according to this
> so long as one did not use the copyright on the compilation to limit the
> users at all and perhaps we could even limit them some and still be an
I vaguely remember something about Red Hat and collective copyright but
I can't find a reference.
> *If* that is indeed so, that is not what I want for BY-SA 4.x - I want
> only Free siblings to be allowed in the BY-SA version of an aggregate.
IANAL but I don't see why a condition of copying a work cannot be that
it not be part of a collection of character X, or even that it cannot be
distributed alongside work of character X. It's a condition, like a
But I'm not sure this is strategically useful.
More information about the cc-licenses