Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 02 May 2012 17:08:36 Francesco Poli wrote:
> 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".

Read the quote again. It is perhaps an unimportant point but still. In the 
GPLv3, aggregates have copyrights.
>
> [...]
>
> > > 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 that is unacceptable. You have a share alike license and don't want to 
share alike at all.

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

And this is a weakness of the GPL with respect to photos and what have you 
and 
is one reason why I do not want to see the next properly strong BY-SA have 
one way compatibility with GPLv3 (or lesser) even though I would like to see 
future BY-SA and GPL compatibility.
>
> > 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...

Big deal. You get a copyrighted book that only you can make copies of, 
distribute, sell, profit from, etc. And you you are using other people's 
BY-SA works in it and locking them out.
>
> > >  * 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?

No, not really. With programs on a medium it is more a matter of convenience. 

You could just as easily provide 2 CDs. One with the Free stuff and one with 
the ARR stuff.

The user will see no difference after he has installed what he wants onto hos 
computer.

In the case of the book. Go ahead and supply 2 books then. One with the Free 
stuff and one with the ARR stuff. You will end up with 2 coffee table books 
and not one coffee table book.

A whole different thing.
>
> > > 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...

Try some more.

What common uses would result in BY-SA kicking in and what common uses would 
not?

all the best,

drew