Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:14:44 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:

> On Monday 16 April 2012 18:13:40 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:35:09 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:
[...]
> > > 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 don't think it fails, but maybe you think it does, simply because you
think it set out to accomplish a different goal... Anyway...

[...]
> > > 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.

Yes, I think this is the correct interpretation. At least, this is my
reading of the license text.

> If that is so, then an 
> aggregate can only contain Free works. Fine.

No, it may include non-free works, but the *aggregate* itself and its
resulting copyright (if any) cannot restrict the freedoms of the
recipients beyond what is allowed by the GPLv3.

This means that you can take an aggregate containing the GPLv3-licensed
work, some other Free works and some non-free works, purge the non-free
works, (possibly add more Free works and/or modify any Free work), and
thus obtain a compilation of Free works.
The person who originally created the first aggregate cannot use its
resulting copyright to sue you, claiming that you created an
unauthorized derivative of the original aggregate.

This is how I read the clause.

> 
> 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?

Because you seem to also want to mandate that *all the other works* in
the aggregate are Free.
This is like a work whose license insists that all the other packages
in a GNU/Linux distro that includes the work must be Free.
Such a work is not Free: it fails DFSG#9, since its license
contaminates unrelated works, just because they are included in the
same aggregation.

> 
> >
> > > 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?)

I think you are correct that CC-by-sa does not mandate that.
But this is no big news: CC-by-sa implements a weaker copyleft
mechanism than the GPL, in many (or all?) respects.
CC-by-sa does not even have a source availability requirement...

> >
> > 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.)

As explained above, it would allow that compilation, as long as the
copyright on the compilation structure (if any) is not be used to
restrict the recipients' freedoms beyond what the GPLv3 allows.
Individual works included in the compilation may be non-free, but the
compilation structure must not restrict the recipients' freedoms.

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

It would allow it, on purpose.
Otherwise it would contaminate unrelated works, just because they are
distributed together.

> 
> 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?

No, as long as C does not restrict the recipients' freedoms through his
copyright on the compilation, the compilation actually qualifies as an
"aggregate", as defined in the GPLv3, and the GPLv3 does not mandate
anything regarding B's work.

At least this is how I read the GPLv3.

[...]
> >
> > 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.

I am trying as hard as I possibly can!   ;-)

[...]
> >
> > > > 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.

They are unrelated just as
http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/linux-image-3.2.0-2-amd64
and
http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/apache2.2-bin

Please note that I picked 2 packages belonging to the same distribution
(Debian wheezy) and that will be distributed on the same medium (a DVD
image, for instance), as soon as this distribution is released.
These 2 packages have mutually *incompatible* licenses (GPLv2 and
Apache2) and one of the two licenses is the GPL: yet the GPL does not
insist that the other package is available under the terms of the GPL.


-- 
 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: pgpbIZB9VeuPP.pgp
Description: PGP signature