[cc-community] CC-BY-SA 4.0 (and other CC-*** 4.0 licences) vs. computer game content

Mike Linksvayer ml at creativecommons.org
Tue Dec 13 11:32:49 EST 2011

I'm sending this to cc-community rather than approving for cc-licenses
though it does directly address 4.0 -- it could use some free flowing
debate before concretizing.

In particular, I think it is missing that GPLv3 addresses "User
Products" -- see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization
-- rendering the specific 4.0 suggestion (AGPL only rather than GPL
compatibility) moot.

However, desire for some non-software creators to license their works
under terms disallowing "tivoization" could be added as a rationale to
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/GPL_compatibility_use_cases ...


---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: Maciej Pendolski <beholder0x100 at gmail.com>
To: cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:05:36 +0100
Subject: CC-BY-SA 4.0 (and other CC-*** 4.0 licences) vs. computer game content
There seams to be a "problem" with regard to CC version 3 licences
when they are applied to computer game content and this is somewhat
related to what AGPL offers vs. what GPL offers. If game content is
released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (or a code is released under GPLv3) then
someone offering [remote (or/and restricted access?)] access to it is
not obliged to release "original" content. This is not a problem for
"linear" media (images, books, music, films, presentations) which
could be easily recorded and then could be shared pretty much directly
with others.

A year or so ago there was some "gaming console" (I can't remember
what if was exactly) being in a test phase. It is / was to operate in
a following way. A game would be running in a remote server center,
player would use a controller and a signal for a controller would be
sent to server center, server would send what if being rendered by
game to user in a form of an audio-video stream.

This means that if CC-BY-SA-3.0-licenced game content would be used in
a game on a server (or GPL game code would be used there) then it
would be impossible to get that content out. A recording of a gameplay
could not easily be transformed back into usable game content (and
GPL-licenced game code would have to be rewritten).

Another thing is that in games there are multiple ways of doing
things, multiple choices to make, ... so to get as much content out as
possible a person would have to complete some games several times and
only then could start a time-consuming "rebuild".

This is why I would most likely not want my game content to be
released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (and would not want to release game code
under GPL) as it seams someone could expand it, modify, ... and then
"lock it down" BUT because it is a way in which a device is supposed
to work (it doesn't seam like a deliberate "lock down") it doesn't
seam that anti-DRM clause would have any effect on this. Someone could
easily "lock" a work based on my work and it could take enormous
effort to be able to expand that work of someone (based upon my work).

Or maybe I am reading something incorrectly? FSF have created AGPL
(compatible with GPL in both ways (version 3)) to deal with this
problem (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html, point 13).

Is there any chance for a similar mechanism (for specific types of
work / when they are used in a specific way?) in CC licences (version
4.0)? If so and if GPL "compatibility" would be implemented in
CC-BY-SA 4.0 then it would make sense to rather have AGPL
"compatibility" as an "export" to GPL would remove any provisions
related to a "lock down".

More information about the cc-community mailing list