Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Is BY-ND a good choice for an Internet XML-based protocol specification?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Is BY-ND a good choice for an Internet XML-based protocol specification?
  • Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:15:10 -0500

Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
Hello people in this list,

I'm part of Xiph.Org Foundation, the group behind Vorbis, FLAC, Ogg,
etc. One of our team mates has been working for two years on a XML
protocol for playlists called XSPF. It is very promising. But as of
late, he decided to put a license on the specification document, which
is to be submited to the IETF as an RFC.

The license he chose was CC-BY-ND, because he is afraid that others
may create their own version of XSPF incompatible with his, hence he
believes the ND clause will prevent that. That may be true, but I'm
afraid it may also legally forbid others to build upon XSPF, because
that's exactly what the license states (i.e. one can't build upon this
work). In my interpretation that means no one is allowed to create a
parser for XSPF without his permission, and if that's so, XSPF is
going to bomb pretty hard, which is most unfortunate due to how great
it is.

So, I have two questions:
Whose interpretation is right? His or mine?

It's been fairly well-established by court decisions in the U.S. that it is legal from the perspective of copyright law to create interoperable systems to a given (copyrighted) system or standard. Baker v. Selden, a golden oldie, dealt with a strikingly similar situation: the plaintiff had published a description of a bookkeeping system and a book of forms. The defendant published a set of forms for use with the plaintiff's bookkeeping system, but didn't simply copy the plaintiff's forms item for item. The defendant won, establishing the rule that copyright didn't protect the way the system worked, and therefore didn't protect any aspects of the forms necessary for them to work with the system.

In your case, that probably means that any attempt to use copyright in the standard at all to control use of or extension of XSPF wouldn't work. Given that, it's kind of irrelevant what CC license you use; people will be able to use and parse and build on XSPF no matter what you say. So your teammate is right in that.

On the other hand, this analysis would suggest that he's also wrong to the extent that he thinks a CC-ND license would stop anyone from creating an incompatible version. The reasoning again is functionality -- so much of the specification is functional, that he has copyright only in the words he uses to describe it, not the way it works. Anyone is free to describe that "way it works" in other language. As long as they don't copy from is own description document, but actually write a description themselves, they can go ahead and produce painfully incompatible "version" of XSPF. So your teammate is wrong to think that using a CC-ND license will do much good, given his goals.

Net takeaway: ND is ineffectual here. It might help prevent some drift in the official standards document, but as long as that's available someplace canonical, there's no serious worry that the description-of-what-is would drift anyway. Given that, CC-BY seems like a perfectly reasonable license for the description.

James





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page