[cc-community] What are your thoughts on [opt-in] anti-tivoization in CC-BY-SA 4.0?

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Wed Dec 21 19:11:38 EST 2011


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Maciej Pendolski
<beholder0x100 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Maciej Pendolski
>> <beholder0x100 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have no idea what is legally possible.
>>
>> But you want CC to adopt it for CC-BY-SA?
>
> Something roughly similar an opt-in so it's not like everyone would be
> using this clause.

But someone could use it on a derivative of a work I release under
CC-BY-SA without opting in.

For instance, if I make map tiles under CC-BY-SA, someone could make
derivative map tiles under CC-BY-SA with the opt in, and then I'd need
to get a lawyer to check whether or not I could use those derivative
tiles in an iPhone app?

In any case, I looked into the "anti-tivoization" clause in GPLv3, and
it seems to me like it's built around the requirement to distribute
source.  But CC-BY-SA does not have a requirement to distribute
source.

>> I shouldn't need a lawyer to distribute a CC-BY-SA song embedded in a snowglobe.
>
> Well. If I correctly understand myself, if your music player (I'm
> going to do a software analogy here) would be open then there would be
> no problems.

The problem is that I'd need to go through the trouble of figuring out
whether or not you correctly understand yourself.

> Another thing is a requirement of a source code which does not really
> translate well to all content or can be an issue. E.g. should someone
> release a photo (used for a texture) in the original resolution and in
> a raw format with no camera post-processing?

Yeah, well, that's the beauty of CC-BY-SA.  You don't have to worry
about all that crap.  You just release the derivative work under
CC-BY-SA.


More information about the cc-community mailing list