Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc: Mike Godwin <mgodwin AT wikimedia.org>, Lawrence Lessig <lessig AT pobox.com>, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l AT lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l AT lists.wikimedia.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license
  • Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:29:36 +0000

drew Roberts wrote:

> a "copyright arising" concept.

The CC licenses are currently strongly tied to this concept. A "strong copyleft" would replace it with a concept of "use".

NC already has a concept of use, and has been recommended as a substitute for BY-SA for photographs to prevent precisely this breaking of people's expectation of reciprocal use. It would be better to satisfy this expectation with stronger copyleft than to push NC as the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

Possibly the collective copyright on the combined works could be used, or the copyright on the layout (if one exists). We talked about these possibilities the last time photo licensing came up on cc-licenses. Failing that the use context can be defined by example.


Mike Linksvayer wrote:

> I like all of your points, including the last one, but it is a little
> unclear. I think what you mean is that for "embedded" uses, the
> containing document should have to be under a free license, not
> necessarily a compatible copyleft license. This would address use of
> copyleft images on Wikinews (CC BY), for example.

It would have to be free rather than just CC. Using BY-SA within an NC or ND context would break reciprocity for example.

> I don't know why yet another class of license would be needed --
> presumably it could be the next version of CC BY-SA.

I personally would much prefer the next BY-SA to be stronger, but if its effects were different enough from the current license then it could be legally or politically difficult to still call the license BY-SA.


Gavin Baker wrote:

I am not a lawyer, but there must be a way to make the distinction
between an item in a database and a photograph on the page of a
magazine. I think that most users of CC licenses with the SA or ND
clauses would agree that the clause should work this way.

Since it is possible to charge for the use of photographs as illustrations and to reserve the ability to do this in commercial contexts by using the NC licence, I'd say it must be possible.

The other examples I've been asked about more than once are an article in a magazine, a song on a CD or in a radio show, and a TV show on a TV channel. At which point would the requriement of a free context stop? And at which point would this requirement become self-defeating or exploitative? The limit of copyleft is sometimes a pragmatic issue or a matter of respecting other people's self-determination.

P.S. A hearty kudos to everyone who helped make CC/GFDL compatibility
possible!

Yes!

Er, as long as invariant sections cannot be added to derivatives of BY-SA works. SFDl/BY-SA would be best.


Terry Hancock wrote:

> The thing is, that as things stand, some producers feel cheated by the
> existing SA, but the changed one would make many consumers feel
> cheated.

Would it? And would any of these consumers feel cheated of anything other than cheating producers out of a reciprocal right to use work that benefits from their own?

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page