Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too
  • Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:36:44 -0800

comments below...

On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Terry Hancock wrote:

Mia Garlick wrote:
a license will not be deemed compatible unless it is reciprocal in
recognizing and enabling compatibility. i don't think one can
include a "Note" in a legal definition. would this rephrasing allay
concern?

""Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed
at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses thathas been
approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this
License, including without limitation because that license: (i)
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."

IMHO, your first draft was better. It straightforwardly requires:

1) CC approval of the license by publishing it in a particular place

2) Reciprocal publishing of a conversion clause by the compatible
license's steward

This is important because it makes reciprocity a requirement of both
stewards in order for the decision to be binding.

i think the amended wording actually makes it clear that CC can only approve a license that allows reciprocality. consequently, that timeline isn't wholly accurate — CC would not take the first step of declaring compatibility with a license that didn't already have compatibility in it.


Consider, e.g. the following timeline:

Date Action Convertable?
Jan 15, 2008 - CC publishes XAL as "compatible" No
with XAF's X Arts License (XAL)*

Feb 15, 2008 - XAF debates CC compatibility No

Jun 15, 2008 - Radical XAF group rejects CC No

Oct 15, 2008 - New XAF leadership reopens CC No
Debate

Dec 20, 2008 - XAF declares CC/XAL compatible Yes

Feb 21, 2009 XAF changes mind, removes CC No?
from compatibility list

Mar 23, 2009 XAF changes mind again, adds CC Yes?
back to compatibility list

Mar 25, 2009 XAF creates new CC-incompatible Y/N by version?
XAL version

etc., etc. Note that this whole time, CC has listed XAL as
"compatible", but XAL flakes or flip-flops on the issue, determining
when the license is compatible. Only the reciprocity clause protects us
from XAL reneging on its agreement with CC.

I think that's a good protection to have.

One thing I am concerned about is the revocation possibility. How does
that work out exactly? If compatibility is revoked (by either
organization), what happens to previously converted works.**

Does the date of combination of works matter?

Also how does compatibility interact with the automatic upgrade clauses?

this is a good question. i think this and the revocation clause question has to be answered on a case by case basis. compatibility can be approved only for a particular license version or it can be approved for the current and any subsequent license versions. if the latter is adopted, then there has to be an agreement between the license stewards that they will maintain the license terms to be essentially equivalent. otherwise i guess one would have to stop compatibility at that license version that contained similar terms and not allow compatibility with later versions...


Consider:
XAL 1.0 terms are compatible with By-SA 3.0
By-SA 3.0 includes auto-upgrade clause
XAL 1.0 includes auto-upgrade clause
XAL 1.2 adds "we love DRM" clause, breaking By-SA compatibility

Derivers break By-SA terms by trivial conversions:

By-SA 3.0 --> XAL 1.0 --> XAL 1.2

(Now I can distribute DRM-locked By-SA content in violation of the
original license)

(Yes they have to "derive" at each stage, but that could be done with
very small changes)

As an opportunity -- this kind of system could *replace* automatic
upgrade clauses, through using such a published conversion table. This
could help with some cases, allowing particular versions to be
converted, but not allowing conversion beyond that version (the problem
being compatibility with existing licenses' upgrade clauses).

Once more than one organization controls the upgrade path, the
opportunity for loopholes in copyleft becomes large.

Cheers,
Terry


*For anyone wondering, "XAL" is a fictious license or the organization
promoting it, and I don't mean to imply anything about the reliability
of any existing organization.

**By "converted work", of course, I mean a work derived from mixed
license sources and released under one or the other of the "compatible"
licenses.

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page