Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:54 PM, adam hyde wrote:

> ok...so...um....the CC and FSF are helping who exactly with license
> interoperability? I really get that monty python feeling where the
> factions are spitting on each other in the arena....

hmm. there is no point in interoperability (as in being able to  
relicense something that was originally under one of the licenses  
under the other): the GPL is intended for software, the CC licenses  
are for works under copyright that are *not* software. as rob  
explained distributing CC-BY-SA and GPL licensed works together is  
fine both under the GPL and the CC-BY-SA. the only 'problem' in this  
regard is the position of Debian legal. as far as i know they are  
still deliberating if they are going to consider CC-BY-SA 3.0 (which  
resolved most of the issues they had with the pervious versions) free  
according to the DFSG or not. one would hope that they will.


> will be see two 'prosumers' sitting on a bench, one asking "is that an
> 'organisation for free licences'?" and the other replying "no! thats a
> free license organsation!... wankers!"
>
> and i won't even get started on asking questions about the FDL...i've
> already made up my mind on that one...

as i said before the GFDL is one of the obvious candidates for  
inclusion in the list of CC compatible licenses. if i am not entirely  
mistaken the incompatibility between CC-BY-SA and GFDL is the main  
reason for the inclusion of the compatability clause in CC-BY-SA 3.0.  
i am not really getting why the GFDL seems to be get you even more  
upset when thinking about compatibility. in the case of the GFDL  
there is a real need for compatibility as both licenses are intended  
for the same type of works, namely non-software works protected by  
copyright.

paul




> adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 18:36 +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> > (I am not CC, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
> >
> > adam hyde wrote:
> >
> > > It would seem the GPL would not be 'compatible' under these terms  
> > > as the
> > > GPL does not explicitly permit: "the relicensing of derivatives  
> > > of works
> > > made available under that license under a particular Creative  
> > > Commons
> > > license"
> >
> > That is correct.
> >
> > > The gpl does not do this. However, how does the CC-GPL fit into this
> > > picture? :
> > > http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl
> > >
> > > Its the GPL with a CC wrapper...is the CC-GPL considered to be  
> > > living
> > > within the CC family of licenses? If so, then the CC-GPL is  
> > > 'compatible'
> > > and the question is answered.
> >
> > Ignore CC-GPL for the purpose of this discussion, that is just CC  
> > trying
> > to explain the GPL to people. It's a very good idea (CC-FDL anybody?)
> > but can be confusing.
> >
> > > is there anyone that can clarify this?
> > >
> > > Just to retour...My specific question is:
> > >
> > > Can content under the CC-BY-SA (3.0) be distributed under the  
> > > GPL? ie.
> > > Is the GPL or 'CC-GPL' a 'similar' or 'compatible' license as per  
> > > the
> > > license statement :
> > > "you may distribute the resulting work only under the same,  
> > > similar or a
> > > compatible license."
> > >
> > > anyone want to make me a happy camper with a categorical yes or  
> > > no? ;)
> >
> > Categorically: no.
> >
> > The GPL is not compatible with BY-SA, and is unlikely to be declared
> > compatible.
> >
> > See above. ;-)
> >
> > If you are the original licensor you could dual-license under BY- 
> > SA and
> > GPL, but that's a very bad idea.
> >
> > > The reason _why_ this is an interesting question for me is that
> > > documentation about free software is often written in CC BY-SA.  
> > > If this
> > > material can be then distributed under the GPL then the docs  
> > > could be
> > > distributed with source code without causing developers extra  
> > > license
> > > headaches.
> >
> > You can distribute BY-SA material with GPL material. The FDL was
> > designed to be applied to documentation distributed with GPL-ed
> > software, and the principle is the same. This is aggregation, and is
> > fine under the GPL.
> >
> > So a GPL-licensed piece of software with BY-SA documentation  
> > should be
> > absolutely fine. Unless it breaks the rules of a particular distro  
> > (e.g.
> > Debian).
> >
> > - Rob.
> --
> adam hyde
> 'free as in media'
>
> ~/.nl
>
> http://www.flossmanuals.net
> http://www.simpel.cc
> http://www.radioqualia.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--
paul keller | knowledgeland
t: +31205756720 | e: pk AT kl.nl | www.knowledgeland.org