Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Sunday 15 April 2012 11:15:30 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:23:00 -0400 zotz AT 100jamz.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:11:42 +0200, Francesco Poli
> >
> > <invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:13:21 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:
> > >> On Monday 09 April 2012 04:58:37 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >> > I don't think the GNU GPL lacks any useful "protection" (whatever
> > >> > that may mean) for photos or images. Hence I respectfully disagree
> > >> > with your concerns.
> > >>
> > >> You may not think so, but it does. As has been discussed at great
> > >> length on these lists for years. BY-SA 3.0 lacks the same protection
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >> Go back and do the research on the lists instead
> > >> of making such comments. Then you will at least know what it may mean.
> > >
> > > It would save me a great amount of time, if you could provide one or
> > > two links to previous message(s) where your arguments are summarized.
> > > It would be really appreciated.
> >
> > And it would probably take me as much time as it would save you. So I
> > am going to do something else for now.
> >
> > On The Need For A Stronger Copyleft For BY-SA 4.x
> > http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2012/01/ontheneedforastrongercopyleftforby-sa
> >4x.html
> >
> > Stronger Attribution-Share Alike For Photos & Illustrations
> > http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2011/04/strongerbysaforphotos.html
> >
> > Hopefully that will get the ball rolling for you.
>
> Thanks drew,
> blog entries are perfectly acceptable, as long as they summarize the
> point you are trying to make.

I am not sure they get it all, but they can serve as a start.
>
> I would like to make this clear: I was asking for links to mailing list
> messages, *just* because *you* mentioned previous mailing list
> discussions, *not* because *only* mailing list messages are acceptable!
>
> > I will try and find time in the next few weeks to do the research into
> > the mail archives and post the results in a new blog post.
>
> No need to do that, as long as you think the two cited blog entries
> summarize your arguments adequately...
>
> So, let's come to the issue under discussion.
>
> It seems to me that the scenario you describe (for instance, the
> hypothetical CD-anthology of night-themed CC-by-sa-v3.0-licensed songs)
> may actually happen.
>
> I am not sure that the same would happen with GPL-licensed works,
> though (for instance, for an hypothetical CD-anthology of night-themed
> GPLv2-licensed or GPLv3-licensed songs).
> Please (re-)read Section 2 of the GNU GPL v2 (especially clause 2b and
> the clarifications at the end of Section 2):
>
> [...]
>
> | the intent is to
> | exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
> | collective works based on the Program.
> |
> | In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> | with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
> | a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
> | the scope of this License.
>
> [...]
>
> The GNU GPL v3 is maybe even clearer on this front; please review
> Section 5 of the GNU GPL v3 (especially clause 5c and the
> clarifications at the end of Section 5):
>
> [...]
>
> | A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
> | works
>
> [...]
>
> | in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
> | "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright

If it is a mere aggregate, surely there would be no resulting copyright. If 
there is a copyright, it must be a creative aggregate and not a mere 
aggregate.

> | are not 
> | used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
> | beyond what the individual works permit.

***beyond what the individual works permit***

I think this is the weak phrase here.

Make an aggregate of lots of Free works and several ARR works. The ARR 
work(s) 
allow(s) restricting the compilation.

In my thinking, surely something that is merely an aggregate does not deserve 
copyright protection and so my thinking would not kick in. But, if copyright 
law gives the aggregate/compilation/collection copyright protection then the 
law thinks it is more than mere aggregation and so my thinking / proposal 
would kick in.

It would then be creative aggregation and not mere aggregation in my books. 
If 
you get a copyright on the aggregate, obey the Free dictates on the Free 
copyleft licenses of the parts.

> | Inclusion of a covered work 
> | in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
> | parts of the aggregate.
>
> [...]
>
> It seems to me that the line drawn by the GNU GPL is the "mere
> aggregation" one: if what you are doing is mere aggregation (or
> "aggregate", if you prefer the GPLv3 terminology),

Their thinking may be ok, I think the language is flawed enough to want a fix 
before allowing for a one way BY-SA -> GPL conversion.

> then the GPL license 
> of one of the included works does not contaminate the rest (otherwise
> it would fail to meet the Debian Free Software Guideline #9);

What I propose for BY-SA would not make the other parts be BY-SA, it would 
just require that they be Free. And that the umbrella copyright be BY-SA if 
possible, other copyleft Free second preference, and permissive Free as a 
last resort. Non-Free not allowed.

Would Debian really consider it non-Free to forbid non-Freedom?

> if 
> instead it's a collective work that is more than mere aggregation, then
> the whole must be licensed under the terms of the GPL.

In my thinking, a true mere aggregate could not get a copyright and therefore 
Free and non-Free could be mixed.

Do we need to prevent that mixing unless is at arms length from the non-Free 
copyright holders?

>
> I am convinced that this is the right line to draw: a strong copyleft,
> but not something that would contaminate unrelated works (otherwise it
> would be non-free).

There is no contamination contemplated. Just an unwillingness to be grouped 
along with non-Free stuff under an umbrella copyright.
>
> In summary, maybe the CC-by-sa copyleft could be strengthened a bit on
> this front, or maybe not.
> But, in my own opinion, it should *not* get stronger than the copyleft
> of the GNU GPL, or otherwise it would become really overreaching and
> non-free.

And I think the GPL wording wording is flawed and will not do what I think it 
is trying to do.
>
> > Related / possibly off topic posts:
>
> [...]
>
> I must confess that I haven't (yet?) found the time to read the other
> possibly off topic links that you provided...  :-(
>
> > all the best,
>
> Bye and thanks for clarifying.

all the best,

drew