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: Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] derivatives and source
  • Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 22:07:26 +0200

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:29:04 -0500 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).

I am also in favor of a source-availability requirement in CC licenses
(at least in CC-by-sa, yes).

> 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.

I don't think it would be so complicated as you seem to believe.

>
> In software we have a clear definition for what is and isn't source
> code,

I suppose that, by "software", you mean computer programs.
As I already said, I instead use the term "software" in a broader sense:
http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissoftware.html

Anyway, yes, there's a clear definition of source code for programs.
It's the one found in the GNU GPL: the preferred form of a program for
making modifications to it.

> and modifiability of software isn't really possible without
> source.

I disagree: there are entire communities of people who routinely make
(unauthorized) modifications to proprietary programs without having
access to their source code. They use disassemblers, hex-editors, and
so forth.
It's not easy, it's not practical. But it's definitely possible.

Obviously, one would prefer having access to another form of the
program, in order to make modifications to it.
That other form is (by definition!) the source code.

> It's not as true with content, which is more of a gradient.

Non-programmatic software works (such as documentation, books, images,
and so forth) are in an equivalent situation.
There's a clear definition of source code for non-programs.
It's again the one found in the GNU GPL: the preferred form of a work
for making modifications to it.
Modification of non-programs is possible without having access to
source code. It may however be not easy or practical. One would prefer
having access to another form of the work, in order to make
modifications to it.
That other form is (by definition!) the source code.

>
> 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.

That would be great (neglecting, for the sake of this argument, the
other unsolved issues of CC licenses...)!

> They do release all the source files.

That would be really really great!

> - Someone makes a remix from the .blend files. Are they obligated to
> release the source files?

If the CC license is a ShareAlike one *with* a source-availability
requirement, I would say they would be obligated to make source
available, yes.

> - 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?

No, because, *for the remix* the source is (again, by definition) the
preferred form for making further *modifications* to the remix.
Let's not confuse the preferred form for making modifications to the
derived work with the preferred form for making modifications to the
original work.

Please compare with the case of a program (F1) written in FORTRAN,
which is taken by someone, translated to C (C1), then modified (C2),
and compiled into an executable binary (E2): the source for E2 is C2,
not F1.

> - If I release a PNG, should I have to release my accompanying GIMP or
> Photoshop files?

If you want to release the source code (and I really encourage to do
so, in any real case), you have to release whatever form you prefer
for making modifications to the PNG image.

> Those are the optimal verisons, but what if I
> didn't keep them?

In that case, you clearly showed that you do not regard them as
preferred form for making modifications to the image: as a consequence,
the source is whatever form you prefer for making modifications to the
image, *among* the forms you kept around.

> What also if someone makes a remix... do they also
> have to distribute my original .xcf files?

Not your *original* .xcf files, but only the form they prefer for making
modifications *to the remix*. This form may be a modified .xcf file (if
they use this form for making modifications to their remix) or some
other form. It really depends on their preferences.

>
> 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.

I think the solution adopted by the GPL is really applicable to any
work, hence I don't agree that adding a source-availability requirement
would be too hard.


--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgprL9wEJSwk7.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page