Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 02 March 2007 08:42 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > On Friday 02 March 2007 05:15 am, Antoine wrote:
> >>> So, the BY-SA decided not to apply to collective works but the GPL
> >>> decided to
> >>> apply to collective works. ??? Is that right?
> >>
> >> No.
> >> "Collective works" and "collections" are not the same thing.
> >> A collective work is a single cohesive work that has been worked on by
> >> several people. A collection of works is, well... a collection.
> >>
> >> As Rob I think the GPL's "mere aggregation" is equivalent to the
> >> CC-by-sa's "collections".
> >
> > Well, can a collective work get a copyright on the collective work? Can a
> > collection of works get a copyright that covers the collection?
>
> When several people co-operates and together creates a work _and_ there
> is no way of telling who's done what, i.e. one cannot separate the
> team-members contributions from each other, then those people get a
> joint copyright to the collective work.
>
> When someone collects several otherwise independent works, the collector
> may, as long as his selection is original, get a copyright to his
> _selection_. NB! This copyright does not extent to the selected works!

Right. I have been asking these questions trying to tie a bunch of things 
together (including my thoughts onthe unit of copyright or however I worded 
it) and explore this quote:

> >> As Rob I think the GPL's "mere aggregation" is equivalent to the
> >> CC-by-sa's "collections".

from above amoung other things.

From the GPL:

"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program."

and

"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License."

I don't know if I see that CC BY-SA's collections match up with the GPL's 
mere 
aggregation.

The GPL talks of derivative or collective works based on the program and mere 
aggregation is described as putting the program and other works on the same 
storage volume.

Now, CC's collections may not be the same as the GPL's collective works, but 
to me they are clearly not the same as the GPL's mere aggregation. Are they 
some third thing?

Let's look here for a bit:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#OtherLicenses

Under CC BY 2.0 we find:

"We recommend using the Free Art License, rather than this one, so as to 
avoid 
augmenting the problem caused by the vagueness of “a Creative Commons 
license”."

Scrolling down to the Free Art License, they write this:

"This is a free and copyleft license meant for artistic works. It permits 
commercial distribution, but any larger work including the copylefted work 
must be free."

They seem to describe this as having the attributes of the strong copyleft we 
are discussing in this thread.

I do find it interesting that they do not seem to make the same 
recommendation 
when it comes to CC BY-SA 2.0 though.

I also findthat wording interesting:

" but any larger work including the copylefted work must be free."

>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)