Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 13 May 2012 18:12:41 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 12:11:53 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 May 2012 17:08:36 Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > 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.
>
> As I said, I think the GPLv3 text implicitly assumes that, when no
> copyright results from the compilation, then the compilation
> automatically satisfies the part of the "aggregate" definition that
> talks about the resulting copyright.

I know what you say but I don't think the language of the license supports 
that view.
>
> [...]
>
> > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:46:36 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Do you also consider unacceptable putting the Linux kernel on the same
> CD as some non-free drivers (think about nVidia proprietary video
> drivers, for instance)?
> This is done by some (many?) GNU/Linux distributions.

See my thought elsewhere that perhaps the distinction that should be used is 
whether the order of the works could be changed without making it a different 
work?

It does not matter if the order of files changes on a CD. It may very well 
matter a whole lot if the order of photographs changes in a book.
>
> I don't see a significant difference between this case and your coffee
> table book example.

And I do.
>
> If you consider aggregating non-free works with copylefted free works
> as unacceptable, well, let's stop running in circles, and let's agree
> to disagree on this topic...

I don't want to go there for true mere aggregation. I would not mind going 
there (unless someone can point out actual real world issues) for copyrighted 
aggregates. Let the copyright aggregate makers lobby lawmakers for a change 
in the law to make such aggregates not subject to copyright. Perhaps there 
will finally be some big boy pressure to reduce the scope of copyright for 
once. As it is now, the ratchet is working all the time.
>
> [...]
>
> > 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.
>
> [...]
>
> I don't see this as a whole different thing.
> If the two books are actually two volumes of the same book (say, part I
> and part II) they could be considered as one book, but also as two
> books.

Well then let them do it. One Free book and one Non-Free book. (Make sure you 
can buy one at a time though?)

all the best,

drew