Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:46:36 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:00:21 +0200, Francesco Poli
> <invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:50:47 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:
[...]
> > You seem to think that only non-creative compilations may qualify as
> > "aggregates".
> 
> No, in fact, non-creative compilations cannot be aggregates per the
> gplv3 wording:
> 
> "is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting
> copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the
> compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit."
> 
> gplv3 aggregates have copyrights according to this language. The
> language does not say its possibly copyright.

Well, a non-existent copyright cannot be used to limit any access or
legal rights!
Hence, I think that it's implicitly assumed that, when no copyright
results from the compilation, the compilation itself automatically
satisfies the constraint about its copyright.

I therefore believe that non-creative compilations may more easily
(than creative ones) qualify as "aggregates".

[...]
> > I think that:
> 
> I think you could do a better job at exploring the different
> possibilities here.
> > 
> >  * 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)
> 
> So let's use real language here for your above example.
> 
> You could take my BY-SA underwater photos and put them along with your
> ARR underwater photos in a coffee table book and be the only person
> allowed to make and sell copies of that book. You would use the
> copyrights on your ARR photos to restrict the rights of everyone else to
> trade in the book.

Yes, probably.
And I could do the same with GPL-licensed photos, as long as the coffee
table book qualifies as an "aggregate".

> What good would not enforcing your right on the
> aggregate do anyone in this instance?

If the coffee table book qualifies as an "aggregate", I cannot use the
compilation or its resulting copyright to limit your freedoms beyond
what is permitted by individual photos (some of which are GPL-licensed,
and thus don't permit much limiting of freedoms).

That means that you may create a derivative of the compilation, by
purging any ARR photos and keeping all the GPL-licensed ones.
You would thus obtain a coffee book table made of GPL-licensed photos
only.
You could even replace the ARR photos with other Free photos, and so
forth. After taking the ARR photos away, the coffee table book becomes
Free.
You may argue that what is left, after purging my ARR photos, is
just *your* GPL-licensed photos, in this example.
But please note that the same operation could be performed by anyone,
not just you. Moreover, maybe I created the coffee table book by
aggregating your GPL-licensed photos, not only with my ARR photos, but
also with other third-party Free photos.
I cannot restrict you from building upon my selection: you just have to
take my ARR photos away...

> > 
> >  * 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
> 
> What makes this a single larger work as opposed to the proposed coffee
> table book of photos only mentioned above?

If the book is, say, a novel and the photos are used as pertinent
illustrations for the story, I would not call it a compilation, but a
single work.

Isn't this distinction similar to a program linked with libraries as
opposed to a collection of independent programs and libraries? 

> > 
> > Or at least, this is how I would interpret the GPL.
> 
> Try some other things. A book of text articles on a certain subject.
> Some articles BY-SA and some ARR. Give us some others.

I think that the book of articles (it could be, for instance, the
proceedings of a symposium or conference) is a compilation, rather than
a single (non-compilation) work.
Hence, it may qualify as an "aggregate", as long as it satisfies the
other constraints...


-- 
 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: pgpsXW8UFmsTn.pgp
Description: PGP signature