Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sat, 19 May 2012 13:01:01 +0200, Francesco Poli
<invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:57:58 -0400 drew Roberts wrote:
> 
>> On Sunday 13 May 2012 18:12:41 Francesco Poli wrote:
> [...]
>> > 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.
> 
> Do you really think that the GPLv3 aggregate exception can *never* apply
> to non-copyrighted compilations?

Correct. I think it may have been a case of poor drafting on their part
though. I think they would want it to. Although perhaps it does not need
to in such cases and so it was left out on purpose and so it is really
not a case of poor drafting. In any case, it would not work the way I
want the new BY-SA to work for art.
> 
> I think we should interpret the language of the license taking its
> spirit into account: it seems obvious that an exception that applies to
> compilations when their resulting copyright is not used in a harming
> manner (and other criteria are met), should be interpreted as applying,
> all the more so, to compilations without any resulting copyright (when
> the other criteria are equally met)...

As I say, perhaps it is not need at all in those cases for what the
GPLv3 intends to hold.
> 
> [...]
>> > 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.
> 
> I cannot see why you consider non-copyrighted compilations and
> copyrighted "aggregates" (as defined in the GNU GPL v3) as two
> completely different beasts.

Because you can use your own copyrighted works in a copyrighted
compilation to restrict me from dealing in that work just as much as you
can use your copyright in the compilation to do so.

In the case of some odd assortment of works that do not get some
"super" copyright, I will take my lumps. Sell your copyrighted works and
my Free works on the same bit of plastic rather than two bits of
plastic, at least the environment may get a benefit out of that.

> As long as the compilation qualifies as an "aggregate", its resulting
> copyright (if any) cannot be used to do harm.

No, but the copyrights on the parts can be used to do harm. So why do I
case which copyrights you use to harm me?

> Hence, I would say there's not much *effective* difference between the
> cases where this copyright exists (but is not used to do harm) and the
> cases where this copyright does not exist at all (and thus cannot in
> any way be used to do harm)...

Well then, let's get rid of the aggregate exception and go whole hog
viral if possible. Would that make you happy?

Look, when it comes to ***code*** the FSF takes the position that
non-Free code is immoral. As such, I am sure they would prefer there be
no non-Free code on any medium ever. I take it then that this clause in
the GPLv3 is based on some pragmatic calculus. It could also possibly be
another reason. Any suggestions for some possibilities?

One of my aims with making my works copyleft and Free is to give as
much advantage as possible to those "playing the Free game" whise not
giving those same advantages to those "playing the non-Free game" - If
you can make the case in those terms to me it might be more convincing.

all the best,

drew