[cc-licenses] input requested: BY-SA/GPL compatibility - license scope
andrewrens at gmail.com
Mon Feb 23 16:00:20 EST 2015
There are at least two considerations which suggest that the benefits of
compatibility outweigh the risks.
1.The mandatory patent grant in the GPL helps to prevent strategic
behaviour. Without that requirement a software vendor could licence code
under the GPL and wait until it has been incorporated in many other
programs and then demand patent licence fees. The requirement for a patent
licence prevents that kind of behaviour.
A person licensing non-software under CC By SA cannot make someone else
re-license under the GPL and so cannot engage in a strategy of licensing
under CC By SA in order to extract patent revenue from users of software or
combined works. The incompatibility does not encourage strategic behaviour
to the detriment of licensees of the GPLed work.
2. Strangers to the licensors and licensees can obtain patents that can
prevent use of CC By SA and GPL works, therefore there is always some risk
of a patent claim - no downstream licensee can require complete protection
from patent claims, there is no human or corporation in the world that can
give that protection.
On 23 February 2015 at 07:15, Sarah Pearson <sarah at creativecommons.org>
> This is the second discussion prompt relating to one-way compatibility
> from BY-SA to the GPLv3. This email relates to license scope, with a
> particular focus on how the two licenses deal with patent rights.
> As we all know, the tone and scope of the two licenses differ, due largely
> to the fact that the GPLv3 was designed for use with software and
> software-like works. Of course, both licenses are primarily designed to
> license copyright, but each license also covers some rights closely related
> to copyright, which means the scope of each varies slightly. GPL covers
> “copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as
> semiconductor masks,” while BY-SA covers “Copyright and Similar Rights,”
> which is defined to include neighboring rights, sui generis database
> rights, and other closely-related rights.
> The most significant difference in license scope is the treatment of
> patent rights. BY-SA expressly reserves patent rights to the licensor,
> while GPLv3 expressly includes a patent grant from each contributor.
> Because patent rights are expressly excluded from BY-SA, there is no
> reliable claim of an implied license to do things with a BY-SA licensed
> work that implicate patent rights. From a compatibility perspective, this
> means that when a BY-SA work is adapted into a GPL-licensed project, downstream
> users of the project would not have patent rights to the BY-SA work.
> (Although the GPL includes a patent license, the scope of rights licensed
> by the BY-SA licensor cannot be expanded because an adapter applies the
> GPL, just as it is not expanded when an adapter applies a later version of
> BY-SA that licenses more rights than the original.)
> This problem is largely academic, given how rarely BY-SA works are subject
> to patents that would be implicated by simply reproducing or adapting the
> content. (In fact, CC has not yet been able to come up with a realistic use
> case, but we welcome concrete examples of those from our community that we
> may be overlooking.) Nonetheless, as a theoretical matter, it creates a
> problem because it is possible to imagine a downstream user of a GPL
> project mistakenly assuming she does not have to worry about patent rights
> even though a BY-SA work is adapted into the project.
> We have asked the FSF to weigh in on this issue. We are also curious what
> all of you think. Does the unlikely but serious risk of patent problems for
> downstream users outweigh the benefits of compatibility? Can we do enough
> to alleviate this risk with proper education for reusers?
> We look forward to your input.
> List info and archives at
> 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