Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - [cc-licenses] CC vs GPL: how to ensure compatibility and compliance

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Javier Candeira <javier AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: [cc-licenses] CC vs GPL: how to ensure compatibility and compliance
  • Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:10:00 +1000

Some time ago we discussed CC vs GPL in this list. Rob Myers convinced me
that there was no problem in software using CC-licensed resources, as they
would not be linked. If I understand it correctly, his argument was along
the lines that a GPL videogame with CC graphics and music was not linking
software, and could be considered "mere aggregation", the same way GPL,
non-GPL and even non-free programs can be distributed in the same physical

(Rob, please excuse me if I am paraphrasing you wrong, I can't find your
message in the archive.)

This article deals with how to ensure compatibility and compliance between
GPL and "freedomdefined-compliant" CC licenses.

I have only read the article cursorily, but I have already found one glaring
> The remaining licenses, CC-BY-SA and CC-BY, stick only to elements that
> satisfy the free software definition. But to be GPL-compatible, a license
> must also be a copyleft license -- meaning the license ensures that once a
> work is made available to the public, it cannot be taken away again. CC-BY
> makes no such requirement, thus it is not copyleft and is incompatible with
> the GPL.

(of course that's silly, many non-copyleft licenses such as BSD are
GPL-compatible precisely by dint of being non-copyleft. It is the OTHER
non-GPL copyleft licenses which are mostly non GPL-compatible).

Maybe there are other issues that you the list may want to raise regarding
Creative Commons licensing.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page