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: David Chart <bydosa AT davidchart.com>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Most important feature: GPL-compatibility
  • Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:05:21 +0900

I don't think allowing conversion to the GPL is a good idea, and I don't
think that GPL compatibility is possible.

On the philosophical point, if the GPL can already be used for any creative
works, then there is no need for a CC license doing the same thing. The claim
that a truly free work must come with the source is thus not relevant to the
question of how the CC licenses should be revised. The argument must be that
it is, in general terms, a good idea for CC-BY-SA works to be also licensable
under the GPL.

I think it would be a bad idea to allow works currently licensed under
CC-BY-SA to be relicensed under the GPL. The authors releasing those works
could have released them under the GPL, but chose not to. Having CC change
that decision for them without consultation would be politically dangerous, I
fear; a lot of people would start suggesting that you can't trust the CC not
to issue version 5.0 with a clause saying "Google can use this stuff however
it likes under any licence". (Google promises not be evil, so that's OK,
right?)

More practically, I don't think it's actually *possible* to distribute a wide
range of BY-SA works under the GPL. 3.0 defines source code, and clause 6
says that when you convey an object form (not the source), you must convey
machine-readable Corresponding Source. For a fair number of works that BY-SA
might be used for, the preferred form for modifications is not
machine-readable. The GPL simply doesn't apply. The source must also be in a
publicly-documented format with an available source code implementation. Even
for electronic works, this is often not the case; artists who work in
Photoshop, for example, cannot provide the preferred form for modifications
in such a format, because the preferred form for modifications is a Photoshop
file.

I also strongly doubt that you can get away with saying "whatever we have is
the source code"; the language looks designed to exclude the binary blobs
that come with some hardware. In that case, a conversion clause is
meaningless; you cannot distribute under the terms of the GPL, because you
cannot hold to those terms. (A conversion clause would provide no leverage to
get the original creator to provide the source; if someone holds copyright,
says that they are releasing something under the GPL, but fails to provide
source, they have merely failed to release something under the GPL. Barring
other contracts, they have no obligation to succeed.)

I can see that it is inconvenient for video games, and that the original
intent of the artists almost certainly was for the images to be usable in any
video game, but I don't think that problem should be solved by changing the
license. Instead, you should get the works relicensed (should be no problem
if the artists really did mean that), or rewrite the code so that you can use
artwork released under a different license, even a non-free one. I'm well
aware that neither of those, particularly the second, is a trivial task...

--
David Chart
http://www.davidchart.com/Blog/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page