Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Aggregation and Stronger SA

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Aggregation and Stronger SA
  • Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:21:14 +0100

On 04/23/2012 02:48 AM, zotz AT 100jamz.com wrote:

This part is not talking about a derivative but an aggregate. It seems
it is only called an aggregate if it is a creative compilation (not a
mere compilation?) but that the copyright on the aggregate is not used
to restrict / limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's
users beyond what the individual works permit.

IANAL, TINLA.

The GPL defines some of its own terminology...

It is possible to claim a copyright on a "collective work", but the copyright does not to my knowledge interact with the underlying work. Copying the underlying works as part of the collective work is of course the same as copying the individual works and so regulated by copyright....

The GPL v2 drew a hard line between collective works and "mere aggregation":

"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. "

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

The GPL v3 simply mentions aggregation, and bear in mind that the GPL broadly regards derivation as modification of code or as linking, which I wouldn't *personally* compare to curatorship/collection of disparate works in a collection.

Some maintain that this would allow a copyrighted compilation of GPL
works (and BY-SA works if BY-SA were to adopt this language?) with ARR
works, BY-NC works, etc. and it would be an aggregate according to this
so long as one did not use the copyright on the compilation to limit the
users at all and perhaps we could even limit them some and still be an
aggregate.

I vaguely remember something about Red Hat and collective copyright but I can't find a reference.

*If* that is indeed so, that is not what I want for BY-SA 4.x - I want
only Free siblings to be allowed in the BY-SA version of an aggregate.

IANAL but I don't see why a condition of copying a work cannot be that it not be part of a collection of character X, or even that it cannot be distributed alongside work of character X. It's a condition, like a dollar rate.

But I'm not sure this is strategically useful.

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page