[cc-licenses] Use cases for cc by-sa compatibility with GPL
osm at inbox.org
Mon Jan 2 17:13:56 EST 2012
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Anthony <osm at inbox.org> writes:
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> wrote:
>> > To cut my previous message short: Do you want cc by-sa to be the
>> > definite copyleft license for free culture? Or do you want to force
>> > people to use GPL for art when they create it for a free game, just
>> > to be safe and to avoid restrictions on their project organization?
>> I don't want to force people to do anything. If people want
>> derivatives of their work to be used in GPL software, they should
>> license their work under GPL.
> The implication of this is that if the author of a graphic image or
> audio file or text document does *not* license their work under GPL, it
> is because they don't want recipients to combine the work into GPL
No, that's not the implication. The implication is that *some* people
licensed their work under CC-BY-SA, and not GPL, because they want
their work under CC-BY-SA, and not GPL.
>> GPL is not a bad license for software. But it's not a good license for
>> photographs, or maps.
> This thread is discussing use cases where that line is not clear.
This thread is discussing allowing *all* CC-BY-SA works to be
relicensed under GPL. That means the ones where GPL is a good
solution *and* the ones where GPL is a bad solution.
> If the original licensors of each work wanted a sharealike, but one of
> them made a program and another made a graphic image and another made an
> audio file – it *is* a bug that a recipient does not have the freedom to
> combine them into a single derived work and redistribute under free
> license terms.
> So what can be done to address that bug?
There's nothing that can be done if the two forms of sharealike are
You can't combine CC-BY-NC-SA with CC-BY-SA, even though both are
sharealike. Should we put a clause in CC-BY-NC-SA allowing people to
relicense the work under CC-BY-SA? Surely it is more likely that the
licensor would have no objection to having his image used in
Wikipedia, but didn't think about the incompatibility between
CC-BY-NC-SA and CC-BY-SA.
More information about the cc-licenses