Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] input requested: FAL/BY-SA compatibility - attribution

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Sarah Pearson <sarah AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] input requested: FAL/BY-SA compatibility - attribution
  • Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:27:09 -0500


On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst AT gmail.com> wrote:
The original work is relicensed (additionally licensed), and the
consequence is losing any CC-BY-SA 4.0 specifics, such as attribution
removal option.

That is right, except that it is only the specifics of the conditions (attribution, ShareAlike) that fall out. That is a very technical point, but it is important when thinking about other things that are different between the two licenses. For example, even after a work is adapted and the FAL is applied, the scope of what the original author licensed is that of BY-SA, and the rights granted are governed by the termination provisions of BY-SA.


On 08/04/2014 12:05 PM, Melanie Dulong de Rosnay wrote:
No, but applicable French droit d'auteur right of attribution has a
downside right to anonymity, so the same result could probably be
achieved...

I haven't suggested or supported the use of moral rights in sensitive
contexts, because I see a striking difference between the attribution
removal provision and moral rights in some European jurisdictions: the
first offers the author a way to dissociate their name from the work,
while the second is interpreted as power to withdraw from circulation
works the author doesn't agree with.


On 08/04/2014 11:53 AM, Sarah Pearson wrote:
When someone applies the FAL to an adaptation of a BY-SA work,
technically both the FAL and BY-SA apply to the full adaptation
because both the adapter and the original author have rights in the
work.

I wonder if this is true and remains true for the reverse case. Reading
the FAL, I see that when someone applies the CC-BY-SA 4.0 to an
adaptation of a FAL work, assuming FAL steward will accept CC-BY-SA 4.0
as "compatible", then the FAL original material is not relicensed
(additionally licensed) under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

The subsequent work is governed by the compatible license, per 2.3, 4,
5, where subsequent work means the adapter's copyrighted contributions.

In this case, the adaptation license has to be interpreted as both FAL
and CC-BY-SA 4.0, each for the respective material. Is this a correct
interpretation?

Based on our discussions with the FAL stewards before this process began, my understanding is that the compatible license (in this case, BY-SA 4.0) would be the only license that applied to the adaptation in that scenario. The FAL stewards are following this discussion, and I hope they will weigh in to correct me if I misunderstood. They would, of course, have the authoritative interpretation on how the FAL works.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page