Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab AT web.de>]

Am Freitag, 30. Dezember 2011, 21:32:43 schrieb Anthony:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab AT web.de>
wrote:
> > Does usage under GPL actually create an additional restriction, if you
> > consider the cc by-sa work be its own source?
>
> My concern was with CC-BY-SA works which are not their own source,
> which would be, I think, most of them.

As of GPLv3, the source is the “preferred form for making modifications”. If
only the cc by-sa version exists (available to the public), then that’s the
only form to make modifications.

GPL does not care if you let someone review your code in libre office (with 
red
marks everywhere :) ). Just the final plain text source code counts.

> You say "GPL has the same goal as cc by-sa".  I say no, it absolutely
> does not.  Even the FSF says that its license recommendations "do not
> concern artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional
> or educational) purpose".

That’s a political statement, not a legal one. And I think that they are wrong
with it.

Where does the goal of the GPL differ from cc by-sa?

I don’t mean the legal implementation. I mean the intention.

What I see:

GPL: If someone changes my work, everyone can use these changes.

cc by-sa: If someone changes my work, everyone can use the changes.

Difference: GPL is used for works which have a clear source/distributable
distinction. cc by-sa is used for works, where the distributables are used as
new sources. But that’s just an implementation issue due to different problem
domains: For cc by-sa the raw sources are too big to be shared easily.

> It's not even clear how you *could* apply the GPL to certain CC-BY-SA
> works.  What is the "source" for a photograph?

You only have the image file, so you just modify the image file. That’s the
source, then.

For artistic works, the distributed version usually is much easier to edit
than for programs, so it can be used as source. It’s how battle for wesnoth
treats artistic data under GPL: “the source is what the artists give us”

If you have a thumbnail and an image and you change the thumbnail by first
changing the image and recreating the thumbnail automatically, then the image
logically is the source for the thumbnail. But if you thumbnail is hand-
edited, that does not hold anymore.

It’s the same for hand-written assembler code, by the way.

Best wishes,
Arne
--
Ich hab' nichts zu verbergen – hab ich gedacht:

- http://draketo.de/licht/lieder/ich-hab-nichts-zu-verbergen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.