Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab AT web.de>]

At Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:50:47 -0400,
(cc to Brett Smith from FSF)

drew Roberts wrote:
> If you use my 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.
…
> I may be redefining aggregate then due to other realms making larger
> works by other than compiling.

I think this is a very important point. Aggregate here does not mean
“mere aggregate”, but compiling larger works in a way which requires
creativity.

> 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.

I think this could be fixed by broadening the definition of linking:
In my opinion such a work is no aggregate, but a combined work. So
GPLv3 might need clarifications on the definition of linking of
creative works.

In programs this is very simple: If it is not a system library (like
sunlight) and not combined via defined independent interfaces (like
sending a website from the server to the browser) and it is used in
any way in the program, then this is linking.

In creative works, this definition is harder.

A solution might be a clarification which says, that combination of
artistic works in a way which gives the resulting work a copyright is
considered as a form of linking, so the strong copyleft of the GPL
kicks in.

> 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 agree. That is what I expect from the GPL. 

The most important part I see here is this:

    supporting part or a representative part of that CD

It means that people don’t get the CD to get your photos, but to get
the CD itself. But that they want the CD, (partly) because of your
photos, while not seeing your photos as independent works.

People who get a Debian CD want to get specific functionality. When
they do not have akregator as newsreader but RSS Owl, and they do not
know akregator, they might not even notice that.

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

…and then find a way to make it work as intended. 

I think that would be really nice. 

And I think the option of cc by-sa → GPL compatibility would be a good
time for the FSF to broaden the GPL to work better for creative works:

     «CC allows by-sa to GPL compatibility, and we clarify the GPL
     linking definiton for creative works in a combined effort to
     reduce license proliferation»

I’d really love that!

Best wishes,
Arne