Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <rob AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?
  • Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:30:03 +0100

Javier Candeira wrote:
Rob Myers wrote:
If you are the original licensor you could dual-license under BY-SA and GPL, but that's a very bad idea.

¿Rob, can you please expound/expand?

BY-SA and the GPL are both copyleft licenses but they are designed for different kinds of work and protect different kinds of use. They are also incompatible.

Software really shouldn't be licensed BY-SA. It doesn't protect user freedom as well as the GPL. In particular you don't have to provide modified source code. And if a user makes a BY-SA derivative of the software it cannot be used with GPL licensed code (such as libraries).

Art shouldn't generally be licensed GPL. There is a web site of GPL-licensed art, and "software art" (programs that are art) should definitely be licensed GPL, but media shouldn't be. Since GPL-licensed code can work quite happily with BY-SA licensed media assets (icons, sounds) and documentation, there is no real reason to separate these from the rest of the BY-SA commons.

I agree with Evan that more and more art is being represented as software (and data), but I think it is still important to distinguish between executable software and cultural works. Ultimately we may need some kind of polymorphous license that requires that you publish the source of your novel when it's published as a LaTeX document and requires that you not add a shrinkwrap license when it's published as a dead-tree book.

- Rob.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page