Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:50:47 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:

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

I think that the (implicit) definition of "mere aggregation" in the GNU
GPL v2 is not so narrow.
I even suspect that the (implicit) meaning of "mere aggregation" in the
GNU GPL v2 has always been what is now explicitly defined in the GNU
GPL v3 as "aggregate".

So I think that the definition of "aggregate" in the GNU GPL v3 is the
one that clarifies the requirements that must be satisfied in order to
have a (legally distributable) compilation of GPL-licensed works and
GPL-incompatible works.

[...]
> > 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.

You seem to think that only non-creative compilations may qualify as
"aggregates".
The fact is that I am not convinced.

A GNU/Linux distribution (such as Debian GNU/Linux, for instance) is
certainly a compilation of independent works distributed on the same
medium (a set of DVDs, for instance).
I think that preparing such a distribution involves creativity, and the
compilation *may* thus be copyrighted (at least in some jurisdictions,
possibly).
Nonetheless, this distribution includes GPL-licensed works *and* may
include GPL-incompatible works.
I don't think that this is a violation of the terms of the GPL-licensed
works, since I think that the distribution qualifies as an "aggregate".
That is to say, the mere aggregation exemption of the GPL kicks in.

[...]
> 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?

Would you call Debian GNU/Linux a "program"?
I don't think so.
I certainly would not call it a "program", but a "distribution of
packages, including many programs and other works".
Or something like that.

So if it's a "program", it's not a "compilation of programs".
In this sense, when I generalized the terminology and replaced
"larger program" with "larger work", maybe I should have used the
expression "larger non-compilation work"...

Would it have been clearer? 

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

I think that:

 * a collection of independent photos qualifies as an "aggregate", even
when it has a resulting copyright (due to creative selection), as long
as this copyright is not used to harm the recipients' freedoms and the
other criteria are met (see again the definition of "aggregate" in the
GNU GPL v3)

 * a book with text and photos used as illustrations does not qualify
as an "aggregate" (in the GPL sense), because it's a single larger
non-compilation work

Or at least, this is how I would interpret 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: pgpSbxARnhB85.pgp
Description: PGP signature