[cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
pcreso at pcreso.com
pcreso at pcreso.com
Wed Dec 28 23:39:14 EST 2011
--- On Thu, 12/29/11, Francesco Poli <invernomuto at paranoici.org> wrote:
From: Francesco Poli <invernomuto at paranoici.org>
Subject: [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
To: "cc-licenses" <cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thursday, December 29, 2011, 10:44 AM
you may remember me from my comments on the CC-v3.0 drafts on this same
list, back in 2006-2007.
Please note that, even though I am a contributor to the Debian Project
and I often speak from the perspective of the Debian Free Software
Guidelines (DFSG), I do *not* speak on behalf of the Debian Project.
That said, I would like to contribute to the CC-v4.0 requirement
In my own personal opinion, the most important feature that really has
to be implemented into CC-v4.0 licenses is GPL-compatibility.
The reason is that the Creative Commons project should strive to reduce
barriers to the re-mixing and re-combining of existing works, by
maximizing compatibility with other well-known licenses: the GNU GPL is
the most prominent and important example of such other licenses.
This strategy will result in a more effective commons of re-usable and
re-adaptable works for the greater benefit of the community.
Many examples of scenarios where this is important could be described,
but one is especially crucial: in the context of Free Software games,
it is not unusual to see cases where the distinction between game
engine and game data is blurred, rather than clear cut.
In these cases, having parts of the game licensed under the terms of
the GNU GPL and parts under the terms of CC-by-sa (or CC-by) may create
compatibility issues and/or legal uncertainty, which may significantly
slow down the development of the game itself.
How can GPL-compatibility be implemented into CC-v4.0 licenses?
I think the only possible approach is including an explicit one-way
Of course GPL-compatibility can be implemented only for CC-by-sa and
for CC-by licenses. More restrictive CC licenses (those with nd and/or
nc clauses) cannot be made GPL-compatible, without completely changing
their intended effect.
Hence, I think that:
* CC-by-sa-v4.0 should include an explicit one-way conversion clause
that would allow redistribution of the work under the terms of the GNU
GPL version 2 or any later version
* CC-by-v4.0 should include an explicit one-way conversion clause
that would allow redistribution of the work under the terms of the zlib
I chose the zlib license, since it's a simple permissive non-copyleft
license which is GPL-compatible. Another similar license could be
chosen as well, if considered more suitable (for example the Expat
license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt or the 3-clause BSD
I hope these suggestions make sense to you.
I would really love seeing them implemented in the next drafts of
All the best,
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses