Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
  • Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 16:22:43 -0500

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Francesco Poli
<invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:08:30 -0500 Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
>> wrote:
>> > One of the reasons some form of
>> > BY-SA->GPL compatibility is interesting is that some want
>> > source-requiring copyleft for non-software,
>
> I personally think that a work is not really Free, without source
> availability.

Okay, but not everyone who licensed their work under CC-BY-SA agrees with
this.

In fact, it seems to me that the best solution for someone who
believes this, is to use GPL, and only GPL.

>> One of the advantages of CC-BY-SA compared to GPL is that it *doesn't*
>> have the sometimes onerous requirement to share source.
>
> I see that as a bug, rather than a feature.

Yes, I realize this.

Obviously I think you're wrong.

> When source (the preferred form of a work for making modifications to
> it) is not made available by the author, each recipient finds
> himself/herself in a position of (technical) disadvantage with respect
> to the author: the author has the possibility to make modifications
> that the recipient cannot make as easily.

True.

And acceptable. Authors do not have a duty to help others make
modifications. In fact, taken to its logical conclusion such a
requirement becomes absurd. An author is pretty much always going to
have an easier time modifying his own software than others.

>> Something to keep in mind is that the "source" of a CC-BY-SA work (the
>> preferred form for making modifications) might in some cases be
>> thousands of times bigger than the non-source version of the work.
>
> In those cases, maybe that form is not really preferred over other
> smaller formats.

I'm talking about cases where that form *is* really preferred over
other smaller formats, though.

> Maybe even the upstream author prefers to keep the
> work in some other more "space-efficient" format.
> When this happens, the smaller format is the actual source (namely, the
> preferred form for making modifications)...

That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm talking about a case
where the "space-efficient" format is the work itself. A map, a
graph, a chart, a jpeg.

> There may be some difficult corner cases, but please keep in mind that
> the definition of source proposed by the GNU GPL is often flexible
> enough to address most cases without problems.

I'm talking about a quite common case that I deal with all the time - maps.

If we want a less common case, what's the source for a sculpture?
What about that die-cast toy that I was talking about earlier? We
have to make it as easy for the recipient of the toy to make
modifications as the original author, right?




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page