Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] ShareAlike compatibility process and criteria: update

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Kat Walsh <kat AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] ShareAlike compatibility process and criteria: update
  • Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 11:41:47 -0700

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 21/05/14 11:02 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
>>
>> ETMs:
>>
>> This restriction should not need to be present in a candidate license
>> in the same form as in the CC license, especially because we don't
>> have evidence of its effectiveness here. Candidate licenses should
>> have an approach, but not necessarily the same one--for example,
>> allowing parallel distribution.
>
> SA has taken two different approaches to ETMs, and there certainly may
> be other interesting and useful approaches. Some of them may be
> improvements over existing approaches and may even be worth adopting for
> future versions of BY-SA. So the requirement that other licenses should
> take *exactly* the same approach to ETMs as SA would not be prudent.
>
> But responses to ETMs should be effective, and parallel distribution is
> not. It should not be accepted in compatible licenses.
>
> Allowing ETMs to be applied to an instance of a ShareAlike work removes
> the permissions granted by the license *for that instance of the work*.
> When all you have is that instance of the work, the license has been
> effectively circumvented for you. And you won't be the only one.
>
> Dual distribution is therefore undesirable both practically (it is more
> efficient to have a single usable version of a work distributed) and
> politically (the existence of a pool of work that refuses or defeats
> ETMs both demonstrates opposition to them and provides a reason for them
> not to be imposed universally).
>
> Please explicitly exclude parallel distribution as an acceptable
> response to ETMs in compatible licenses.

We've decided not to take this suggestion. In the current draft, we
will be leaving open the possibility for ETMs to be addressed in some
way other than the CC licenses handle it, so long as they are
addressed in some fashion.

A method of addressing ETMs that does not seem strong enough may be a
reason to argue against a particular license when it comes up for
consideration, but we have currently decided not to explicitly exclude
parallel distribution as a possibility.

-Kat

--
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/@/etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page