Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - [cc-licenses] Fwd: Re: Discussion Draft - Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tsiavos,P" <P.Tsiavos AT lse.ac.uk>
  • To: <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc: lessig AT pobox.com
  • Subject: [cc-licenses] Fwd: Re: Discussion Draft - Proposed License Amendment to Avoid Content Ghettos in the Commons
  • Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:37:36 -0000

Just to add a few comments on the new SA clause from a CCEW perspective.

The problem of compatibility between CC and free/open content licences is one
we have faced last year in the UK in the case of the BBC-CA licence that is
pretty much the same as the CCEW licence but not exactly the same. The
difference between “pretty much the same” and “the same” makes a difference
in quite a few cases and the BBC-CA is not an exception :-)

We thought of using a provision similar to the one that Mia suggests but
after extensive discussions in the CC-UK list as well as with the BBC legal
team and Christiane, we decided to opt out. The reasons (that I think are
applicable in the case of an GFDL interoperability clause) may be summarised
as follows:

- the two licences have some terms and conditions which are not in
common. As a result when I licence my work under a CC-BY-SA licence that
allows the derivative works to be licensed under a GDFL licence as well, the
following problems arise:
(a) the interoperation with the GDFL has to be somehow expressed in the
commons deed so that the user of the CC-BY-SA licence makes and informed
decision
(b) the terms of the GDFL also have to be expressed somehow for the same
reason
(c) Explicating the terms of the GDFL is not necessarily going to be an
easy task. GDFL is a complex document (as it has already mentioned in the
list) and has no commons deed equivalent. Are the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence users
making an equally well informed decision as e.g. the CC-BY-SA 2.5? I am not
sure this is the case…
(d) the user of a CC-BY-SA licence is effectively forced to license her
derivative from the original works under a GDFL licence (see next point),
without being given a choice.
(e) the derivative work is effectively licensed under the terms of the
most restrictive licence. If the author of the derivative work decides to go
for the GDFL option, there is nothing the original work licensor could do to
stop her. The case with the invariant sections (or the commercial uses in the
case of CC-BY-NC-SA) Rob mentions is illustrative of the problem. Hence the
CC-SA clause is diluted into a GDFL-SA licence.
- there is a good reason why there is a number of different Free/ open
content licences out there: people have different needs. Even when we
approach different communities (e.g. medical doctors or new media artists)
they are considering different options for licensing their works and the CC
licences are not always the most appropriate for them. What are we trying to
achieve with a homogenization of the licences? An one size fits all approach
may not be what we need here. If the objective is to simplify things perhaps
we should be working on creating CC modules that would encourage solutions
similar to the commons deed in other communities rather than trying to make
all licences fully interoperable. A Creative Labelling kind of project could
be a possible solution?
- We have negotiated extensively with the BBC in order to bring the two
licences as close as possible but differences always emerge. Unless GDFL
becomes substantially and fully compatible with (at least some) CC licences,
the discussion concerning the SA element will always bring problems. As
people have already indicated in this list, this should be a condition for a
SA clause in the form we see it in the v3.0 licences.

Sorry for the awfully long email:-)

I am eager to read your comments!

Best,
prodromos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page