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: Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>
  • 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 17:02:43 +0000

Hello Isabelle,

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

Nither am I !

:-)

Yes, indeed! don't be afraid of reading the whole FAL's legal code.

I'm not. I always read the full legal code of the licenses I use :)

2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY
[snip]
So, it's clear that the conditions that you have to respect are specified just above "in the article 2.2" :

I see...

2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)
[snip]
- specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the originals (original and subsequent).

I think this is a requirement that's not in the Creative Commons. So this would be a potential incompatibility.

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. ... only the copies of a work are allowed to be modified.

I see. So it looks like the FAL was written with non-digital artwork in mind. Like, say you take a photograph and make it FAL. I can use a photocopy of your photograph and modify that copy. But I can't modify the origina.

Alright, fair enough. But how would this affect digital work? How do you distinguish between "original" and "copy"? When you send me a photograph by email, your computer makes a copy and sends it to me. When I save it, my computer makes another copy. When you open the photograph, your computer makes a copy and puts it in RAM.

In the digital world, everything is a copy.

How would the FAL deal with a digital work? (this is my primary area of interest).

At the same time, I can see how the origial vs copy distinction is important for a physical object. It may be difficult to write a license that can reasonably apply to both digital and physical art. But I think it's good to try (consider, for example, that I take a digital picture and print it, now it's physical; or I see a physical work of art and take a digital picture of it).

- 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.

That does sound complicated.

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.

That sounds great.

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.

The first item is that you find the CC licenses confusing. I don't understand how that is about freedom. Note, I'm not saying that this item is not important. I know it's important that we understand the licenses we use.

In any event, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I feel I understand the FAL much better now.

From my current understanding, I think I would use the FAL for physical works and the BY-SA for digital works. But that's just an opinion.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
\/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were
/ were severely inconvenienced.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page