Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Isabelle Vodjdani <vodjdani.isabelle AT numericable.fr>]

Daniel Carrera a écrit :

> Hello Isabelle,
>  
Hello Daniel,

> I read the FAL, but I am not a lawyer.
Nither am I !

Let me first precise that my answer below, is personnal (though indebted 
to many talks with copyleft_attitude's actors), while the summary of the 
meeting I have previously posted in the begenning of this thread was the 
result of a collective work (collective in the meaning of the french 
law, when different contributions are not distinguishable).

> So I need some help understanding 
> it. It wasn't very clear to me what the FAL says. Does the FAL require 
> that modifications to the work be FAL? I couldn't find that on the license.
>  
Yes, indeed! don't be afraid of reading the whole FAL's legal code. It's 
a quite short text that leaves enough room in the brain to let one think 
about it's meaning.

in the FAL you can read this :
.

> 2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY
>
> You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and 
> subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out 
> in article 2.2 , in the event of distribution (or representation) of 
> the modified copy. The author of the original may, if he wishes, give 
> you the right to modify the original under the same conditions as the 
> copies

So, it's clear that the conditions that you have to respect are 
specified just above "in the article 2.2" :

> 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)
>
> You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, 
> whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if 
> you observe all the following conditions:
> - attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate 
> precisely where the license can be found,
> - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
> - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the 
> originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, 
> if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original 
> under the same conditions as the copies.
I hope you get it now.

> Can you compare the FAL with the BY-SA? 
This is the subjet of the first workshop and it's a heavy task we have 
to conduct. I have to confess that we tried to do it several times with 
Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, but each time, the job have been leaved 
uncomplete.  Nevertheless, these incomplete results have been useful for 
the drafting of the french  cc adaptation. But now it's time to wonder 
why is it so hard to carry out such a work in a more complete way ?
After several attempts, I arrived at the conclusion that though pursuing 
the same goal on the whole, the wording method of the two licenses are 
so heterogeneous that one can hardly get through a precise comparison

> Can you give us an example of 
> something that would be allowed under one license but not the other?
>  
Yes, in spite of these difficulties, it's possible to underline some 
points that arise questions. For example I can mention that :

- The FAL recognises a distinction between the original and the copy. 
With respect to the moral right, and the requirement for the 
availability of the original work (source) for other uses, only the 
copies of a work are allowed to be modified. The modification of an 
original (let's say a non digital and autographic handwork, a painting 
for example) requires a special authorisation of the originator. Now, if 
you look on the other hand, at the CC legal code, you don't find such a 
distinction; therefore* 
<http://dictionnaire.tv5.org/dictionnaires.asp?Action=5&Mot=therefore&Alea=32139>*, 
one can understand that the CC licenses allows modifications on original 
autographic works, since the definition of the "work" seems to include 
any kind of medium.

- At the end of 4.a of CC licenses there is a paragraph that let me 
interrogative about the consequences of a partially non attribution 
term. Indeed, the IP allows an author to publish his work anonymously 
and to bring afterwards the proof of his authorship (in which case we 
have a clearly time sequenced sheme), the partially non attribution term 
leaves the possibility of some generations of attributed derivative 
works, and in the same time, other generations of non-attribuded 
derivative works that found their starting point in the context of some 
collective work. The case is so complicated that I even don't know 
whether it has to determine or not a non compatibility indication.

These were two examples, but we have to invistigate more precisely to 
set up a list of all the possible problems in order to resolve the more 
significant differences between the two licenses.

>  
>
> > The aim is to be allowed to mix together some works offered under the CC 
> > by-sa with other works offered under the FAL, and then, to put the 
> > resulting derivative work under one of these two licences.
> >    
>
> Assuming that BY-SA and FAL are very similar, it would be good to be 
> able to take BY-SA work and make it FAL and take FAL work and make it BY-SA.
>
>  
Shure! it would be a good thing for everyone. This is what we try to 
reach, but if both part don't realy will it, it becomes impossible to 
overcome the numerous problems.
I suppose that if  Melanie Dulong de Rosnay asked us to study such a 
possibility, it's because she observed such a will about cc by+sa users, 
and of course, a lot of FAL users will the same thing.

>  
>
> > Actually, there are two obstacles to the compatibility :
> >
> > 1- the Free Art License dosen't allow one to mix a work ruled by another 
> > License with a work ruled by the FAL (article 7).
> >    
>
> Could this change in the future?
>  
Yes, we are seriousely thinking and working about it. Such a term wasn't 
possible 5 years ago, but now that a few number of free licenses are 
well known and adopted by some significant communities of users, we can 
concretely study the conditions and terms of an additional article which 
would allow us to set up a list of compatible licenses.

>  
>
> > 2- The CC by-sa dosen't fit into the criteria of freedom as conceived by 
> > the Free Art License :
> >
> > The main problems pointed out are :
> > # the fact that the drafting of CC licenses is quite confuse and can 
> > generate some conflictual interpretations
> > # the compatibility between the several national adaptations of CC 
> > licenses means that a compatibility between the FAL and the French CC 
> > by-sa would mean, as well, a compatibility between the FAL and other 
> > national adaptations whose significations and legal consequences are not 
> > clear for us.
> >    
>
> I don't understand how those two items relate to freedom. You find the 
> CC licenses confusing and are concerned about the national adaptations. 
> Those are more of practical considerations than an issue of freedom.
>  
Well, the practical considerations are important too, otherwise freedom 
reminds only a nice wish.
The first item is deeply related to our conception of freedom.
The second consideration is much more law-technichal but not less important.

Please excuse me if don't have the time to develope more explanations. 
Maybe there will be other opportunities to do it some day.
For the moment, just think about it...


>  
>
> > We thus came to the conclusion that the compatibility between the two 
> > licenses required that the CC by-sa should adopt the terms of the FAL.
> >    
>
> It may be good to explain what those are.
>
> * What does the FAL allow that is prohobited by the BY-SA?
> * What does the FAL prohibit that is allowed by the BY-SA?
>
>  
see above

> > the FAL ... simplicity of its wording
> >    
>
> When I read the FAL I found it confusing. In particular, I couldn't 
> understand the conditions under which I am allowed to modify the work 
> (section 2.3). It was obscure to me.
>  
see above

Isabelle

> Best,
> Daniel.
>