[cc-licenses] input requested: GPL compatibility
arne_bab at web.de
Mon Apr 6 15:54:14 EDT 2015
Thank you for organizing the public review and for your work in
closing the chasm which currently separates free culture and free
The discussion was mostly constructive and friendly, and I think you
played a major part in realizing that.
Am Donnerstag, 2. April 2015, 09:56:21 schrieb Sarah Pearson:
> The public comment period for GPL compatibility is now closed. We'll be
> doing our final analysis internally based on comments received and will
> announce a compatibility determination on this list in the next several
> weeks. More soon.
> Thanks to those of you who gave input.
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Sarah Pearson <sarah at creativecommons.org>
> > This final discussion prompt is essentially a catch-all, intended to
> > encourage you all to raise any final concerns about one-way compatibility
> > from BY-SA 4.0 to GPLv3 before we close the public discussion period.
> > We also wanted to highlight two other areas of difference between the two
> > licenses, though as you will see below, we do not view either issue as
> > particularly problematic for compatibility purposes.
> > The first is *license termination*. Both licenses terminate automatically
> > upon breach. BY-SA is reinstated automatically if the breach is cured
> > within 30 days of discovery. GPLv3 is reinstated for first-time violators
> > who cure within 30 days of getting notice of the violation from the
> > copyright holder, and may be reinstated after other violations if it has
> > been corrected for 60 days without the licensor's objection. These
> > differences make it so one could technically have rights under the GPLv3
> > reinstated but not under BY-SA in situations where both licenses apply
> > (i.e. when BY-SA content is adapted and integrated into a GPL-licensed
> > project). As a practical matter, licensors and licensees in both
> > communities typically deal with license violations outside the strict
> > letter of the license, so we feel this is unlikely to be a real world
> > obstacle to compatibility.
> > The other difference we wanted to highlight was the *option to comply
> > with later versions*. GPLv3 gives licensees the option to comply with a
> > later version of the GPL if the licensor has so specified, or to use *any*
> > version of the GPL if no version number was specified, regardless of
> > whether the work has been adapted. BY-SA allows licensees to comply with
> > the conditions of future versions of BY-SA, but only if that version was
> > applied to an adaptation of the work. Because only version 3 of the GPL is
> > under consideration for compatibility at this time, reusers that adapt
> > BY-SA content into GPL-licensed projects would only be able to use GPLv3
> > unless and until other GPL versions are made compatible. With solid
> > education for both communities and encouragement of clear marking by
> > licensors, we do not feel this should not be an obstacle to compatibility.
> > Does anyone disagree with the analysis of these two points and/or have
> > other issues to raise before a final compatibility determination is made?
> > Please raise any questions or comments on or off-list as soon as possible. *We
> > plan to close the public comment period on March 31. *
> > best,
> > Sarah
> >  Theoretically, one could have their rights reinstated under BY-SA but
> > not GPL, but this does not create the same risk of potential infringement.
> > Because we are only considering one-way compatibility from BY-SA to GPL,
> > the adapter’s license (i.e. the last-applied license) will always be the
> > GPL. If someone looks only at the GPL when using a GPL project that
> > incorporates a BY-SA work, at worst they will they will not realize they
> > still have rights to the BY-SA work.
Ein Würfel System - einfach saubere Regeln:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 299 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the cc-licenses