Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] derivatives and source

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] derivatives and source
  • Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 22:51:49 +0200

+1 for all the points raised by Christopher here. i really think that making
the licenses more complex (which is what adam's suggestion comes down to) is
the solution the legitimate concerns that Adam raises. Personally i am a
strong believer in the relatively simple approach of asking people for a
different format if the one at hand does not suit my needs. works more often
then not. i simply do not believe that all transaction can be pre-empted by
imposing legal requirements. in reality a source requirement would be
beneficial to a relatively small group of users while it makes licensing
material much more difficult for the big majority of people willing to share
their works. /paul


On 6 Apr 2012, at 21:29, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> I agree that in many ways source requirements in CC licenses would be
> great (at least in CC BY-SA). However, I think it's also very complex,
> and thus unlikely to be implementable in 4.0, or maybe really ever
> appropriate in the legalcode of CC licenses.
>
> In software we have a clear definition for what is and isn't source
> code, and modifiability of software isn't really possible without
> source. It's not as true with content, which is more of a gradient.
>
> Your example of open textbooks is a good example of when not providing
> the "source" files is problematic. However, I can't imagine ways to
> make all the following situations equal:
>
> - So, the Blender Foundation releases Elephants Dream, and let's assume
> it's under a CC licenses that does include a source requirement.
> They do release all the source files.
> - Someone makes a remix from the .blend files. Are they obligated to
> release the source files?
> - Someone makes a remix from the fully rendered film, a music video
> or something. In this case, they never even touched the original
> .blend files at all, may have not even encountered them. Are they
> obligated to release gigabytes of source materials that they never
> even touched in making their remix?
> - If I release a PNG, should I have to release my accompanying GIMP or
> Photoshop files? Those are the optimal verisons, but what if I
> didn't keep them? What also if someone makes a remix... do they also
> have to distribute my original .xcf files?
>
> I agree that it's unfortunate that we can have something where someone
> can claim to be an open publshing org and etc and actually not release
> things in a way that's actually easy for people to make derivatives
> from. But as far as I can tell it's simply too hard to draft legalcode
> that's not incredibly hard to comply with for many cases of users, or
> which ends up being so vague that it ends up being basically useless or
> completely ignored.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - Chris
>
> adam <adam AT xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> With the new licenses is it possible to ask for the source to be
>> provided in works that are licensed to allow derivatives? I know this
>> issue mainly from the field of books. Now that open publishing (etc) is
>> gaining enormous popularity I see more and more 'open books' made
>> available in PDF only or mobi only formats etc.
>>
>> GPL requires source as a pre-condition for 3 of its 4 freedoms I believe
>> and I think that is for good reason. Derivatives require source. Without
>> source derivatives are not realistic possibilities and PDF or other
>> releases are nothing more than a 'mechanical' form of copyright protection.
>>
>> I would actually like to see a source requirement in ND as well since it
>> is impossible to transcode/transform into other formats sometimes
>> without it. I am guessing that would be a less popular position however.
>>
>> I also understand source doesnt apply to all media equally. However a
>> 'where applicable the source must be provided in a standardised and
>> reusable format' would help matters a lot...
>>
>>
>> adam
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> List info and archives at
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>>
>> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
>> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
>> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page