Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:51:15 +0200, Francesco Poli
<invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
> 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.

No it doesn't. Forget the GPL language for a second.

If you use by copyleft photograph in another work that is copyrighted
(***note carefully*** not included it on some medium where it is not a
part of some other copyrighted work.) then all other copyrighted works
that also make up a part of that work that includes mine must be Free.
And the work that includes them all must be under the same license as
mine if possible and under an acceptable copyleft license if not.
> 
> 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.

I may be redefining aggregate then due to other realms making larger
works by other than compiling.
> 
> 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)

See, combining formerly independent works in such a way that the
combination gets a copyright makes that combination a work according to
copyright language as I have had it explained to me and that means that
they are combined so as to form a larger work. It is not possible that
the compilation gets a copyright and is not a larger work.

 "in or on a volume of a storage or distribution
> medium", provided that "the compilation and its resulting copyright"

Now here they have the compilation getting a copyright which makes it a
work of copyright and it is obviously larger than its included parts. I
think the GPLv3 has confusing language here.

> (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.
> [...]

In my mind, and as I explain things, a work of mere aggregation is one
which has no creativity involved in the aggregation process and so does
not quality for a copyright. That means my proposal for BY-SA 4.x would
not place any restrictions on what works could be included on the same
medium in a mere aggregation situation.
> 
>> 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.

And I only propose a limit on the Freeness of siblings to a BY-SA 4.x
work in the case where the compilation is not a mere aggregate but is an
aggregate/compilation/whatever that has some creativity associated in
its making and thus gets a copyright. Since this is a copyrighted work
and it has to be larger than the portion of my work it contains based on
the fact that it also contains other copyrighted or non-copyrighted
works, where is you objection?
> 
> Here you are saying a different thing (so please make up your mind,
> otherwise we will run in circles forever...).

No, I have been wondering about / asking for the same thing for years
now. Differing language perhaps and it may have evolved over time but
the basic idea has remained intact if I recall correctly.
> 
> 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). (Where set of approved licenses 
> are ones that meet the freedom defined definitions of Free or the FSF 
> definition of Free.
> 
> This restriction is much narrower than what I quoted when I commented
> that your proposed restriction was overreaching and non-free.

I don't see it being any narrower than what I put forward initially.
Perhaps I have explained it clearer later.
> 
> 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).

Yes but I am speaking of a possibly human compiler/collector that does
the combining into a collection/compilation/whatever that copyright law
considers a copyrighted work. I am not just looking at computer
compiling.
> 
> I am under the impression that you are confusing the concept of
> "aggregate" (or mere aggregation) with the concept of single larger
> work.

Look, I am not sure if it is considered a single larger work in
copyright law language. It is a copyrighted work though. And it does
contain my work. And it is not mere aggregation if mere aggregation is
aggregation without human creativity. It is rather aggregation that has
enough creativity involved to get the aggregate work a copyright.
> 
> 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.

Yes but the only way to make a larger work in the computer world is by
compilation/linking/etc.

When you make a book containing text in various chapters and containing
illustrations and photographs, it is a human pulling this stuff
together. Same with a magazine. Same with whatever.

If the only way my BY-SA photos get on the same CD with someone else's
ARR photos and still another ARR text is by some computer program
randomly picking stuff off of a large hard disk so as to try and
minimize wasted space on the CD, fine. Mere aggregation. CD itself does
not get a copyright / is not a work of copyright. If instead my photo
ends up on that CD because someone picked it as being a supporting part
or a representative part of that CD such that some creativity was used
in selecting what went on that CD and that CD is a work deserving of a
copyright of its own, I say that is not mere aggregation going on wrt
that CD and let the copyleft provisions kick in such that all works of
copyright contained on that CD must have a Free license.
> 
> 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.

I maintain my proposal does not violate DFSG#9

"9. 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."


> 
> 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.

Reading again, I think the GPLv3 may have confused language. Speaking
of a non-Work that is covered by copyright.

'A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and
which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
“aggregate”'

So far so good.

'if the compilation and its resulting copyright'

This is where things fall apart in my view. How can the compilation get
a copyright without it being a larger program? This may make sense in
the world of code which is what the license was crafted to cover and
protect but when we try to stretch it to cover orther works of copyright
we run into trouble.

>From GPLv3 terms and conditions:

“The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and
“recipients” may be individuals or organizations.


'are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's
users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered
work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.'

Can aggregates defined as such exist outside of actual programs and
compilations of the same?

Why don't you take a shot at how photos commonly get used and explain
how the gplv3 copyleft provisions would affect each situation.

all the best,

drew