Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Sarah Pearson <sarah AT creativecommons.org>]

This is the third and final question we plan to pose during the FAL compatibility discussion period. However, because this is prime vacation time for much of Europe, we plan to keep the discussion open until mid-September.

The FAL has a few other differences from BY-SA that we have not previously touched upon in previous emails. We address each in turn below.

Effective technological measures: Unlike BY-SA, the FAL does not explicitly prohibit the application of DRM or other effective technological measures ("ETMs") to the licensed work, but it prohibits users from doing anything that prevents others from exercising the license freedoms. Because this implicitly disallows ETMs, we feel this difference is not a significant concern for compatibility.

Automatic reinstatement after termination: Unlike BY-SA, the FAL does not have a provision allowing licensees to automatically get their rights back under the license after they correct a violation. When a BY-SA work is adapted and the FAL is applied, at worst, licensees will not realize their rights are automatically reinstated under certain circumstances. We do not feel this is an obstacle to compatibility.

Option to comply with later versions: The FAL gives licensees the option to comply with a later version of the FAL, regardless of whether the work has been adapted. BY-SA, on the other hand, allows licensees to comply with the conditions of future versions of BY-SA, but only if that version was applied to an adaptation of the work. When a BY-SA work is adapted and the FAL is applied, this provision should not have any effect on licensees' obligations vis-a-vis BY-SA 4.0.

Please chime in if you disagree with any of our assessments above, or if you have any other thoughts about FAL compatibility generally.

best,

CC Legal