Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images
  • Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:00:25 -0500

On Sunday 25 February 2007 10:23 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> Dana Powers wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >
> >> You don't ordinarily have the right to distribute my work. It's the
> >> license which gives you the right to do so. The stipulation that the
> >> result of combining my work with another work may only be distributed
> >> if distributed under an equally free license no more creates a
> >> covenant to limit the licensee's natural rights than the stipulation
> >> that attribution must be provided, the technological measures can't be
> >> used, that the license must be identified, etc.
> >
> > Yes, CC Licenses are basically contracts used to exchange certain
> > copyright entitlements for various promises to attribute, notify, use
> > and/or re-license in particular ways.
> >
> > I am very skeptical, however, that tests like "distributed with" or
> > "semantically related" are legally feasible. Movie soundtracks are a
> > bit easier because (among other things) the law already understands
> > what the movie industry calls "sync rights," and they are pretty easy
> > to define narrowly. But is there an equivalent narrow legal right for
> > photos used in print?
> >
> >> Nor is this behavior especially novel, the FSF has decades of
> >> experience getting compliance with the same behavioral aspects of the
> >> GPL.
> >
> > Although the GPL still allows you to distribute on the same CD with
> > non-GPL code. How would you distinguish the two? If you say
> > "semantically related" I'll respectfully ask you to please define it
> > in a way that would be useful to a lawyer or judge.
>
> Moreover, "semantically related" is likewise probably significantly
> broader than the GPL's test for "modified work."

Sure, but unless someone can point it out, I see no reason why BY-SA must
duplicate the GPL, in fact, doing so makes it considerably weaker in some
domains than the GPL is in its intended domain. I think that is what got the
ball rolling this time around. No?

> I can imagine two
> programs that are "semantically related" even though they are
> "independent and separate works." Perhaps this is not quite what fans
> of "semantically related" mean by the term, but that just brings us back
> to Dana's point: that the term is unclear.

Yes, well, getting domain independent language clearer and effective may
indeed be difficult. By example, what some mean is using BY-SA animal photos
in an ARR book about animals. Clearly, this use is more than mere aggregation
of some unrelated photos and some unrelated texts on a CD.
>
> James

all the best,

drew
--
(da idea man)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page