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: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • 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 18:43:39 -0500

On Monday 12 February 2007 10:49 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.
>
> 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.

My take is that CC should not list a license as compatible unless it is
reciprocal.

Perhaps they need a compatible except for table and list reciprocity as on of
hte column headings on that table.
>
> 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?
>
> 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)

In all honesty, does this make our deisres for license convertability
basically a pipe dream or a minefield? Would be better spend our efforts at
license merging?
>
> 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.

all the best,

drew
--
(da idea man)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page