Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Gunnar Wolf <gwolf AT gwolf.org>]

drew Roberts dijo [Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:59:57AM -0500]:
> > > There is a need for all copyleft Free works to be mixable. It may not be
> > > possible. It likely isn't possible in all cases, but it is needed.
> >
> > There are ways to ship them together without making them into one
> > indivisible work.
> 
> Take on gpl photograph and one by-sa photograph amd make a combined work as 
> a 
> print.
>
> It likely isn't possible in all cases, but it is needed.
> >
> > If you want your work to be able to be mixed into a GPL project,
> > either you or the other project's authors would have to (at least)
> > dual-license.
> 
> And if both photographs have become orphan works?

Yes, I agree with your assertion — In essence. However, not only the
GPL and the CC-BY-SA, but *all* strong-copyleft licenses are IMO
either mutually incompatible or functionally equivalent (in which case
there is no reason for license proliferation).

If GPL and CC-BY-SA works were to be combinable, and the resulting
work would fall under either of them, then what'd the point be in them
both existing? 

> Unless you thing we should stick a source requirement into the next by-sa 
> anyway, we are practically on the same page on that one.

Right, we are on the same page on that.

> I do think we might consider inserting a conditional source requirement 
> into 
> the next by-sa along the lines that if the licensed work is code or a 
> computer program, source is required along the lines of the gpl or even the 
> agpl.

Special-casing is bad IMO. Because if we special-case for computer
code, we'd have to define what computer code means. We had a very long
discussion in Debian when we had a vote ("Editorial changes" in early
2004 IIRC). In the end, everything that's software can be seen as
computer code (even if its compiler can only qualify as abstract art
;-) ).

> > No, sorry, you are wrong here. If you are the author, of course, you
> > are free to do as you wish. Give me your binaries licensed under the
> > GPL. However, I cannot redistribute them
> 
> That is correct. But you can make as many copies as you like for personal 
> reasons. You can also illegally distribute binaries and those who get 
> binary 
> copies from you also now have the right to make as many copies as they like 
> for personal reasons. I can't come after you or them for the personal 
> copies. 
> I can come after you for distributing binaries only. Well, perhaps only if 
> someone asks for source and you don't comply. I am not sure how that would 
> play in court though.
> (...)
> Certainly there is a need for the source code here. It would be bogus of me 
> to 
> distribute my original program under the gpl and keep the source but you 
> would still have the binary from me under the gpl. It would not become an 
> ARR 
> binary just because I was being a jerk.

If you distribute GPLed code without the source (or a written offer to
give the source for the cost of the media) you are not complying with
the terms of the license. If got a binary blob and are unaware it
should be GPL-protected, then you should treat it as All Rights
Reserved — that means, no copying, no redistribution, no nothing. If
you are aware it is GPLed material, you should be able to provide the
code to whoever you give it to (that means, comply with the
license). Simple as that. No explicit license means ARR.