Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Saturday 10 February 2007 12:39 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Mia Garlick wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 2007, at 11:00 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
> >>Since the GPL is the big copyleft license and it has source code
> >>clauses, if
> >>you are trying to set up the framework, has there been any
> >>discussoin as to
> >>how BY-SA might handle this?
>
> But note that the question is one of allowing By-SA work to be
> relicensed as GPL -- not the reverse. In this case, one could explicitly
> allow the source code requirement to be added.
>
> > there has never been any suggestion of making software licenses
> > compatible with content licenses and there is no reason to start that
> > discussion now.
>
> But of course, the GPL has been used for content as well as code.

Yes it has.
>
> In particular, vector graphic artwork (and likewise, MIDI music) have
> definite "source code" versions for which the GPL's source requirements
> are perfectly obvious.
>
> IMHO, it would be reasonable (but not necessarily essential) to consider
> re-licensing work from By-SA to GPL in such cases:

I think it would be nice. I think people involved in Free works should be 
willing to help each other out by sharing wherever they can do so without 
violating the things which they consider essential to protect.
>
> E.g:
>
> musical instrument patches (By-SA)
>    combined with
> MIDI music (GPL)
>
>   V
> rendered music (GPL), must include MIDI source and patches

I see what you are saying, but even here the GPL source requirements may mess 
things up art wise. (I need to think about this more and ask around for more 
input.) If blind musician bob who has no computer hears a BY-SA song playing 
at a friends house, he can make a redivative up in his head, record his 
version to tape singing and playing his instrument. He can then dupe the 
tapes and sell them. (Following the license.) Now in the case of the GPL, he 
has never had the source, he does not have a pc, his derivative never existed 
in digital form much less source form. How would the GPL look at cases like 
this for non code parts of gpl works? As much as I like the GPL and use it 
for my code, I would not want to prevent such uses of my BY-SA works if the 
GPL's source language would prevent it.

And I like the source code requirements and would like to see some added to 
BY-SA if we can find wording that would require it where it can but not 
prevent things like this. I think it was Benjamin and I who were talking 
about this late last year either on one of the CC lists or offlist.
>
> (or)
>
> PNG or JPG images (By-SA)
>    combined with
> SVG graphic (GPL)
>
>   V
> rendered PNG graphics (GPL), must include SVG and resources
>
>
> As I read the revised By-SA language, these two options would become
> legal if CC chose to post the GPL as a "compatible license".
>
> The question is whether posting it would violate the CC's social
> contract with CC licensors -- is the additional source code
> requirement a negligible detail, or a substantial change of intent?
>
> Obviously no license can be regarded as precisely the same in intent as
> another (unless they are actually the same license), so there is
> obviously always going to be a judgement call in which licenses CC
> decides to declare "compatible".
>
> For myself, I can't think of any work I've licensed under By-SA that I
> would object to seeing re-licensed to GPL in this way (the GPL is "free
> enough" IMHO, even if this makes it "less free").
>
> As a point of interest: does anyone reading this disagree with that?
> (I.e.: Would you object to relicensing any of your content from By-SA to
> GPL?)

I would want my BY-SA works to be able to be used in GPL works but I woulnd 
not want to see the problems I bring up above occur. So, it would depend on 
whether the GPL source language would cause them or not. I don't know. I have 
not thought much at all as to the GPLs working with non-code.
>
>
> One possible subtlety that could be added is to permit this re-licensing
> ONLY when it is forced by the licensing of other content.  IOW, what if
> you allowed this:
>
> Work "alpha"  - created by author "A", licensed By-SA: alpha (A/By-SA)
> Work "beta"   - created by author "B", licensed GPL:   beta  (B/GPL)
>
> Hypothetical derivatives "epsilon", "theta", "eta", created by
> contributor C, including original contribution "delta"
>
> CASE                         RESULT            ALLOWED LICENSES
>
> alpha + delta             => epsilon           By-SA (only)
> beta  + delta                theta             GPL (only)
> alpha + beta + delta         eta               GPL*
>
> *By special CC compatibility statement.
>
> The "GPL" on work "eta" is the exception permited by special permission
> from CC (this work is currently illegal to distribute under ANY license,
> without special permission from the authors of both "alpha" and "beta").
>
> If the existing language is used, then work "epsilon" may be released
> under either By-SA or GPL -- but I would propose disallowing that case.

I would not want to disallow that case if delta were code. I would/might if 
delta were not code. (I will have to think on this.)
>
> IOW, only if the contributor incorporates pre-existing GPL work is he
> allowed to do change the license to GPL (and perhaps only if that is the
> only way to legally distribute the result).

Not only pre-existing GPL work, but someone else's pre-existing work right? 
Or 
else he can just code up his code before pulling down the BY-SA work. Or if 
you mean pre-existing GPL work to be a GPL work that was made date wise 
before the BY-SA work was made or something like that, then that will be a 
real mess.
>
> However, this is obviously complicated. It'd be simpler to disallow
> conversion to GPL altogether (but there are existing works which would
> be caught in limbo in that case). My present advice for this situation
> is to request permission to relicense to By-SA from the authors in this
> case.
>
> >>Just guessing, but I doubt you will ever get the
> >>GPL to allow conversion to BY-SA without dealing with that source
> >>code issue.
>
> I'd go so far as to say that is definite.
>
> >>It is not going to fly to take GPL code, make a derivative and only
> >>realease
> >>the derivative as a binary under BY-SA. Nor with obfuscated code
> >>for that
> >>matter.
>
> No -- it's clear that this would be a one-way conversion if anything.
>
> However, I anticipate that CC will shy away from it entirely.
>
> OTOH, *any* uni-lateral compatibility statement would be bad for the
> commons of By-SA works, as it would encourage "bleed out" of works from
> CC licenses to others (and not allow reconversion back to CC).
>
> I would hope that, in the cases where CC decides to post a license as
> "compatible", that there is a reciprocal statement being made by the
> parties controlling that other license.

I thought I just read that in the draft Mia posted.

From Definitions:

(b) "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed at
    http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that: (i) has been approved
    by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License,
    including without limitation because that license contains terms that have
    the same purpose, meaning and effect as the License Elements of this
    License; and, (ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of derivatives of 
works
    made available under that license under this License.

See (ii)? Now presumably (ii) is redundant in the license itself except as a 
safeguard? Surely CC will not list it as approved if it does not do so. Or is 
CC going to play games with us and put licenses there as approved but we 
can't actually use them because they don't meet (ii)?

Actually Mia, does this need to be fixed?

Thinking further, I think it does need fixing. Here is my suggested rewording:

(b) "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed at
    http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved
    by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License,
    including without limitation because that license contains terms that have
    the same purpose, meaning and effect as the License Elements of this
    License. Note: Creative Commons will not approve such a license unless
    it explicitly permits the relicensing of derivatives of works made
    available under that license under this License.
>
> Should THAT be regarded as essential?

This comes down to a power play or a license proliferation play. (Anything 
else.)

One way of looking at it is this: If two licenses are willing to allow 
two-way 
conversion like this, shouldn't they just merge? They could always fork again 
later if it became necessary. Or even just one say:

Copyleft License X:

License text: See CC BY-SA license text and substitute Org X for CC and CLX 
for BY-SA and add CLX works can be relicenses as CC BY-SA works.

To word it from the other license's side. Of course CC could do that and 
point 
to Copyleft License X from BY-SA.

I know this is far fetched.

Now, a reason not to do this whole license conversion thing:

As a user uf CC licenses, this convertability forces me to trust CC more than 
I do now. Or to try and understand the other licenses as well as I do the CC 
ones.

Trust as to intent and as to ability.

Now, is this trust issue real? I am not sure. Since the current license has 
the future version and the other jurisdiction wordings, I pretty much have to 
have something close to this level of trust right now and I have no way of 
reading the licenses in other languages for myself in any case.

>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)