Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:42:13 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:

> On Monday 23 April 2012 13:33:41 Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:48:35 -0400 zotz AT 100jamz.com wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > *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.
> >
> > As I said, I am convinced that such a clause would be overreaching and
> > constitute a non-free restriction...
> 
> Why do you think it is overreaching?
> 
> I have seen DFSG #9 raised as an objection but:
> 
> "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
> 
> The license must not place restrictions on other software that is 
> distributed 
> along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist 
> that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free 
> software."
> 
> the proposal does not place any restrictions on other programs/works 
> distributed on the same medium.

It does, actually.

You said that you want a license La that insists that all other works in
an "aggregate" containing one work released under the terms of license
La must be released under the same license La (or one of the licenses
belonging to a set of "approved" licenses).

If by "aggregate" you mean what the GNU GPL v3 defines as an
"aggregate", then the license La that you seem to want *does* place
restrictions on other works distributed on the same medium.

Please recall that the GNU GPL v3 defines an "aggregate" as a
compilation of independent works (which are not by their nature
extensions of each other and are not combined with each other such as
to form a larger work) "in or on a volume of a storage or distribution
medium", provided that "the compilation and its resulting copyright"
(if there is any) "are not used to limit the access or legal rights" of
the compilation's recipients "beyond what the individual works permit".
See section 5 of the GPLv3 text.

Please note that the GNU GPL v3 does *not* place any restriction on
other works included in an aggregate containing one GPLv3-licensed work:

[...]
| Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License
| to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
[...]

A similar exemption is present in the GNU GPL v2 (see section 2):

[...]
| 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.
[...]

> Such works can be Free or non-Free. It only 
> proposes that programs/works that make up a part of a larger program/work 
> be 
> Free and that the larger work be under the same license if possible, 
> another 
> acceptable copyleft Free license if not.

Here you are saying a different thing (so please make up your mind,
otherwise we will run in circles forever...).

What you are *now* proposing is a license Lb that insists that all parts
in a larger work containing one part released under the terms of license
Lb must be released under the same license Lb (or one of the licenses
belonging to a set of "approved" licenses).

This restriction is much narrower than what I quoted when I commented
that your proposed restriction was overreaching and non-free.

Indeed, while I think that license La includes a non-free restriction
(that fails DFSG#9), I instead think that the narrower restriction in
license Lb is perfectly fine and acceptable.
Both GPLv2 and GPLv3 include even stronger restrictions, as part of the
implementation of their copyleft mechanisms.

[...]
> When a compiler/collector combines these separate works into a larger 
> copyrighted work, formerly unrelated works get related in the process. Just 
> as you can take formerly unrelated software libraries and white a program 
> that uses them and they become related in that program. They don't become 
> derivatives of each other but they do become related.
[...]

Please note that a program linked with libraries forms a single larger
work, not a mere aggregation (as the term is used in the GNU GPL v2) nor
an "aggregate" (as defined in the GNU GPL v3).

I am under the impression that you are confusing the concept of
"aggregate" (or mere aggregation) with the concept of single larger
work.

The GPL does *not* place restrictions on other works in a mere
aggregation or in an "aggregate".
It instead places copyleft restrictions on other parts of a larger work.

I am convinced that this is correct line to draw for a strong copyleft
license.

Placing restrictions on the other works in an aggregate is non-free (it
fails DFSG#9): for this reason I oppose to such proposals.

On the other hand, insisting that a larger work is licensed as a
whole under the same terms as one part is a Free restriction
(implementing a copyleft mechanism): I am perfectly fine with a
proposal like that, but please note, once again, that this is already
accomplished by 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: pgpD4E9RFvqC5.pgp
Description: PGP signature