Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Compatibility between CC licenses and the GPL

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andrea Glorioso <sama AT miu-ft.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Compatibility between CC licenses and the GPL
  • Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:29:38 +0200

I'm not a lawyer and I don't speak for CC.

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Olson <mao AT sleepycat.com> writes:

> Berkeley DB is bundled with an enormous number of open source
> and free software packages -- not least, Linux -- and that
> ubiquity is valuable to the company. It's crucial to our
> continued success that we make it easy for the free software
> community to bundle Berkeley DB with other software that is
> licensed under the GPL.

> Berkeley DB is, of course, not very useful absent the
> documentation.

> We have recently received word from an informed party -- I would
> not so far say that the person speaks authoritatively for the
> FSF, but it's someone who's clueful on the issues and
> understands the intricacies of GPL compatibility -- that the
> A-SA license is incompatible with the GPL.

> What this would mean, practically, is that GPL'ed software --
> for example (again), Linux -- would not be able to bundle the
> Berkeley DB documentation. That would create an impediment to
> use of Berkeley DB in Linux and on Linux. Over time, it could
> well result in reduced reliance on Berkeley DB in popular open
> source packages. That would be a bad outcome for Sleepycat.

I'm not sure I understand what the precise problem is. In what sense
are you planning to "bundle" your documentation with anything else (I
very much doubt that you are going to bundle it with "Linux", since
"Linux" is just a kernel and is not usually distributed alone [0])?

As far as I know, if you include your documentation in a CD, a DVD, a
tape, an ISO image or whatever, this doesn't at all reflect on the
compatibility with the GNU GPL.

The compatibility issues arise when you link [1] your "NOT (GNU GPL)"
code with (GNU GPL) code. If you just deliver a tarball of
documentation and on the same CD there is a tarball of GNU GPL code,
no compatibility issues arise (as far as I know).

Maybe I completely misunderstood the problem - if that's the case,
please try to point me in the right direction.

Bye!

--
Andrea Glorioso sama AT miu-ft.org +39 333 820 5723
.:: Media Innovation Unit - Firenze Tecnologia ::.
Conquering the world for fun and profit

[0] I don't want to be obnoxious here and I'm not playing an "holier
than thou" attitude, but I think it would help to get the
definitions straight before discussing the issue.

[1] Yes, it's actually more complicated than that, but I'm trying to
keep things simple to begin.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page