Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Compatibility workshop : FAL, CC by-sa

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isabelle Vodjdani <vodjdani.isabelle AT numericable.fr>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Compatibility workshop : FAL, CC by-sa
  • Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:35:21 +0100


Daniel Carrera a écrit :

Hello Isabelle,

Hello Daniel,

I read the FAL, but I am not a lawyer.

Nither am I !

Let me first precise that my answer below, is personnal (though indebted to many talks with copyleft_attitude's actors), while the summary of the meeting I have previously posted in the begenning of this thread was the result of a collective work (collective in the meaning of the french law, when different contributions are not distinguishable).

So I need some help understanding it. It wasn't very clear to me what the FAL says. Does the FAL require that modifications to the work be FAL? I couldn't find that on the license.

Yes, indeed! don't be afraid of reading the whole FAL's legal code. It's a quite short text that leaves enough room in the brain to let one think about it's meaning.

in the FAL you can read this :
.

2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY

You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out in article 2.2 , in the event of distribution (or representation) of the modified copy. The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to modify the original under the same conditions as the copies

So, it's clear that the conditions that you have to respect are specified just above "in the article 2.2" :

2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)

You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions:
- attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate precisely where the license can be found,
- specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original under the same conditions as the copies.

I hope you get it now.

Can you compare the FAL with the BY-SA?
This is the subjet of the first workshop and it's a heavy task we have to conduct. I have to confess that we tried to do it several times with Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, but each time, the job have been leaved uncomplete. Nevertheless, these incomplete results have been useful for the drafting of the french cc adaptation. But now it's time to wonder why is it so hard to carry out such a work in a more complete way ?
After several attempts, I arrived at the conclusion that though pursuing the same goal on the whole, the wording method of the two licenses are so heterogeneous that one can hardly get through a precise comparison

Can you give us an example of something that would be allowed under one license but not the other?

Yes, in spite of these difficulties, it's possible to underline some points that arise questions. For example I can mention that :

- The FAL recognises a distinction between the original and the copy. With respect to the moral right, and the requirement for the availability of the original work (source) for other uses, only the copies of a work are allowed to be modified. The modification of an original (let's say a non digital and autographic handwork, a painting for example) requires a special authorisation of the originator. Now, if you look on the other hand, at the CC legal code, you don't find such a distinction; therefore* <http://dictionnaire.tv5.org/dictionnaires.asp?Action=5&Mot=therefore&Alea=32139>*, one can understand that the CC licenses allows modifications on original autographic works, since the definition of the "work" seems to include any kind of medium.

- At the end of 4.a of CC licenses there is a paragraph that let me interrogative about the consequences of a partially non attribution term. Indeed, the IP allows an author to publish his work anonymously and to bring afterwards the proof of his authorship (in which case we have a clearly time sequenced sheme), the partially non attribution term leaves the possibility of some generations of attributed derivative works, and in the same time, other generations of non-attribuded derivative works that found their starting point in the context of some collective work. The case is so complicated that I even don't know whether it has to determine or not a non compatibility indication.

These were two examples, but we have to invistigate more precisely to set up a list of all the possible problems in order to resolve the more significant differences between the two licenses.


The aim is to be allowed to mix together some works offered under the CC by-sa with other works offered under the FAL, and then, to put the resulting derivative work under one of these two licences.


Assuming that BY-SA and FAL are very similar, it would be good to be able to take BY-SA work and make it FAL and take FAL work and make it BY-SA.


Shure! it would be a good thing for everyone. This is what we try to reach, but if both part don't realy will it, it becomes impossible to overcome the numerous problems.
I suppose that if Melanie Dulong de Rosnay asked us to study such a possibility, it's because she observed such a will about cc by+sa users, and of course, a lot of FAL users will the same thing.


Actually, there are two obstacles to the compatibility :

1- the Free Art License dosen't allow one to mix a work ruled by another License with a work ruled by the FAL (article 7).


Could this change in the future?

Yes, we are seriousely thinking and working about it. Such a term wasn't possible 5 years ago, but now that a few number of free licenses are well known and adopted by some significant communities of users, we can concretely study the conditions and terms of an additional article which would allow us to set up a list of compatible licenses.


2- The CC by-sa dosen't fit into the criteria of freedom as conceived by the Free Art License :

The main problems pointed out are :
# the fact that the drafting of CC licenses is quite confuse and can generate some conflictual interpretations
# the compatibility between the several national adaptations of CC licenses means that a compatibility between the FAL and the French CC by-sa would mean, as well, a compatibility between the FAL and other national adaptations whose significations and legal consequences are not clear for us.


I don't understand how those two items relate to freedom. You find the CC licenses confusing and are concerned about the national adaptations. Those are more of practical considerations than an issue of freedom.

Well, the practical considerations are important too, otherwise freedom reminds only a nice wish.
The first item is deeply related to our conception of freedom.
The second consideration is much more law-technichal but not less important.

Please excuse me if don't have the time to develope more explanations. Maybe there will be other opportunities to do it some day.
For the moment, just think about it...




We thus came to the conclusion that the compatibility between the two licenses required that the CC by-sa should adopt the terms of the FAL.


It may be good to explain what those are.

* What does the FAL allow that is prohobited by the BY-SA?
* What does the FAL prohibit that is allowed by the BY-SA?


see above

the FAL ... simplicity of its wording


When I read the FAL I found it confusing. In particular, I couldn't understand the conditions under which I am allowed to modify the work (section 2.3). It was obscure to me.

see above

Isabelle

Best,
Daniel.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page