Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 16 April 2012 18:13:40 Francesco Poli wrote:
> 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.

Of course I can. If it defines ti in such a way that it fails to accomplish 
what it set out to accomplish.

> 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*.

Got that.
>
> > 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.

I think I am beginning to see where we are seeing that language differently.

You are taking that language to mean that the aggregate must be at least as 
Free as the GPLv3 if it contains a GPLv3 work. If that is so, then an 
aggregate can only contain Free works. Fine.

I am reading it that you can restrict as much as any part allows. In that 
case 
I am not restricting beyond what is allowed by that work.

Hmmm. But i am restricting beyond what is allowed by others.

I need to think on this some more. If this is truly the case, why are you 
arguing against my language which is basically the same requirement?

>
> > 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.

But BY-SA does not match that. (Or defines mere aggregation differently?)
>
> 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),

No it would not allow that combination. The copyright on the ARR work would 
restrict the users Freedom beyond that the GPLv3 would allow (in your take.)

In my take to this point, it would allow it and that is why the language is 
flawed.

Which is it?

> 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.

Or are you contemplating ARR works which will behave as Free works?

A makes a GPLv3 work. B makes and ARR work. C makes an aggregate containing A 
and B's works. He gets a copyright on the aggregate. He does not intend to 
enforce his copyright. Now B's behaviour controls whether C's aggregate is 
acceptable or not?
>
> > 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...

It is more than just with the resulting copyright. It is what harm can be 
done 
with the copyrights of the siblings.
>
> 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...  ;-)

Help me realize it then. 
>
> > > | 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...

I was leaning your way until you mentioned a GPLv3 compliant aggregate with 
an 
ARR work in it.
>
> > > 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).

Do you maintain they are unrelated works? They are *being* related by the 
compiler/aggregator. They may have begun as unrelated works, but they are now 
related.
>
> [...]
>
> > 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.

all the best,

drew