[cc-community] A case against CC-BY-SA 4.0 -> GPL

Maciej Pendolski beholder0x100 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 14 17:20:00 EST 2011

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>wrote:

> These are all good points, to be weighed against the inherent
> divisiveness (of another sort) of non-compatibility. The points you
> make are some of the reasons I find the soon-to-be-released MPL 2's
> approach to GPL compatibility interesting -- it can happen, but
> licensor has to have indicated desire for it (MPL 1.1 works not GPL
> compatible unless they were multi-licensed under GPL, in which case it
> is a no-op) or can opt out (MPL 2.0 works can say no secondary
> licenses) and works can't be relicensed GPL willy-nilly, but only if
> they're incorporated into a GPL project, and even then there some
> opportunity to get them back out under MPL 2. Sounds fairly
> complicated but it's not so. :)

Assuming that an opt-out mechanism would be in place, what would it mean if
CC-BY-SA-licenced content would be based in parts upon CC-BY content? Would
CC-BY content be "promoted" to CC-BY-SA and then to GPL? Or would CC-BY
content be still under same licence and only CC-BY-SA would be changed to
GPL leading to incompatibility?

In that debate I have mentioned before (GPL->BSD) it was argued (I'm not
sure if rightly) that a driver was not changed "enough" so it was illegal
to licence it under GPL. Could CC-BY content be directly "promoted" to
CC-BY-SA or not?

Lastly, CC-BY-SA content creators could opt out, CC-BY content creators
could not. I'm not sure that this would be a problem to anyone but I'm just
trying to find holes in everything.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20111214/6bda767f/attachment.html 

More information about the cc-community mailing list