Development of Creative Commons licenses

["B. Jean" <veille.jus AT gmail.com>]

Terry Hancock a écrit :
> drew Roberts wrote:
>   
> > On Monday 23 July 2007 10:32 am, B. Jean wrote:
> >     
> > > > You can't put the work on a web site? People do that all the time with a
> > > > web link to the cvs or other version control system. Or am I
> > > > misunderstanding you big time?
> > > >         
> > > What you can't do, is to display the code on the website. 
> > >       
> > But this is precisely what I am saying people do all the time...
> >
> > http://zbcw.cvs.sourceforge.net/zbcw/
> > http://drsoundwall.googlecode.com/svn/
> > http://callweaver.org/browse
> > http://filmgimp.cvs.sourceforge.net/filmgimp/
> >
> > Interesting that they don't have the right to do so. Is sourceforge guilty of 
> > massive contributory damages. (Or whatever the term is...)
> >     
>
> IANAL, but...
>
> Two thoughts:
>
> 1) Quoting a work under *any* license for academic or review purposes is
> legal under fair use. Putting code snippets on a site in order to
> explain functionality or demonstrate properties of the code surely falls
> under this exemption to begin with.
>
> 2) Although putting something on a website can be regarded as "public
> performance" it can also simply be viewed as "distributing copies".
> Since the GPL defines an allowed process for doing the latter, such
> practices (even beyond the limits of fair use) should be possible so
> long as the license text and a link to the source are provided (but it
> *IS* the source you are providing). Note that a snippet of GPL'd work is
>  also a separable GPL work*, so there is no "copy in full" requirement here.
>
>
> * AFAICT, two separate theories make this true: 1) a copyright license
> allows partial reproduction as well as complete, and 2) a partial copy
> can be regarded as a derivative work (the original contribution being
> the removal of extraneous material). There's no requirement in the GPL
> that the software distributed work, therefore the fact that the snippet
> is not compilable isn't an issue.
>
>
> Of course, the line between "distributing copies" and "performing
> publically" may well be drawn differently in different jurisdictions.
>
> However, in most discussions of GPL code, "public performance" is taken
> to mean *running* the program on a website, if it means anything at all.
> This argument has been used to suggest that Google is violating the
> license by "publically performing" software that is under a copyleft
> license, without sharing the source code. OTOH, they're still doing it,
> so that must not be a very strong argument. (?)
>
> So I find the idea of regarding the publishing of the source code on a
> website to be "public performance" a little strange.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>   
IAALBIANYL (as some claims)

(of course, quoting under fair use, or special exceptions in Authors' 
Rights law, is perfectly admitted).

About the use by network, as google does, the GPL v2's FAQ and the GPL 
v3 explicitly speak about private area (It's why some persons speaks 
about " SHING GPL" (« /Sun HP IBM Nokia Google/ »)). In fact, this 
solution is consistent because the software's code (and its attached 
copyright) is not distributed : thereby, we don't have any right on the 
result.

Next, the GNU GPL v2 state : " Activities other than copying, 
distribution and modification are not covered by this License [...] ". 
Theses words ('Copying', 'distribution', 'modification') are "terms of 
law", ie. they have a specific (copyright) meaning which can't be 
interpreted - copyright law isn't my specialty, but this thinking is 
share with US's lawyers (like Rosen). You have two type of communication 
: indirect (if you reproduce, and you distribute the copy), and direct 
(you make the work publicly clearly visible).
I'm informed that US law are more flexible, but the GPL seems to be 
closed by itself to any flexibility. Furthermore, in France, or any 
other Authors' right country, you have to detail each rights you want to 
license (the license can't be implicit).

These problems are minor for software (because they don't really need to 
be subject to a " public performance"), but are essential for other type 
of works.
It's not a problem, because the FSF always claim that its license was 
for software (recommending the Free Art License for other works). In my 
mind, criticizing licenses is a good way to improve these ones ; so 
don't see my commentary as some FUD or things like that (moreover, the 
GPL v3 seems to correct this loophole).

Yes, Laws are strange ^^,
Cheers !
Benjamin Jean