Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:35:09 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:

> On Sunday 15 April 2012 11:15:30 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > 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).
[...]
> > 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.

Wait, the quoted GPLv3 license text is *defining* the term "aggregate",
hence you cannot argue that it's wrong.
I mean: the GNU GPL v3 calls "aggregate" any compilation of works that
satisfies certain conditions.
And the conditions are: a compilation is called "aggregate", if the
compilation itself and its resulting copyright (if any) are not used to
restrict the freedoms of the recipients *beyond what is allowed by the
individual works*.

> 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.

But if there's at least one GPLv3-licensed work in the compilation,
that particular individual work does *not* permit restricting the
freedoms of its recipients (apart from what is stated in Section 7).
Then, as a consequence, the freedoms of the recipients of the
compilation cannot be restricted, or otherwise the compilation won't be
considered an "aggregate", as far as the GPLv3 is concerned.

> 
> 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.

But when the compilation is not mere aggregation, the GPLv2 insists
that the compilation is licensed as a whole under the terms of the
GPLv2.

And the GPLv3 has a similar provision, but with a slight change: a
compilation may include GPLv3-licensed works together with incompatible
works (such as ARR ones), as long as the compilation and its resulting
copyright (if any) are not used to restrict the freedoms of the
recipients.
Otherwise, the compilation has to be licensed as a whole under the
GPLv3.

Hence, I think that the scenarios you would like to disallow are
actually *not* permitted with GPL-licensed works.

> 
> 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.

Or otherwise do no harm with the copyright resulting from the
compilation...

I am more and more convinced that what you want is *exactly* what the
GPL (especially the GPLv2) does, it's just that you don't realize
it...  ;-) 

> 
> > | 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.

I don't think that the GPL language is flawed in this regard.
Really, please re-read the relevant clauses... what you are looking for
is really there, IMHO...

> 
> > 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?

Yes, if the non-freeness is forbidden on unrelated works (see DFSG#9). 

[...]
> And I think the GPL wording wording is flawed and will not do what I think 
> it 
> is trying to do.

Once again, please think again: I am convinced that the GPL language
achieves its purpose, and that your purpose is really the same.



-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpitCNM3GNva.pgp
Description: PGP signature