headers
adam hyde | 2 Jul 2007 18:11
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 16:43 +0100, Andres Guadamuz wrote:
> Dear Adam,
> 
> As far as I know, there is an official list of compatible licences, which is
> empty at the moment. See:
> 
> http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses
> 

thanks - thats an interesting resource. It states:

"Creative Commons approves licenses as compatible when they, at a
minimum, contain terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect as
the key license elements of a particular Creative Commons license and
when a license explicitly permits the relicensing of derivatives of
works made available under that license under a particular Creative
Commons license."

It would seem the GPL would not be 'compatible' under these terms as the
GPL does not explicitly permit: "the relicensing of derivatives of works
made available under that license under a particular Creative Commons
license"

The gpl does not do this. However, how does the CC-GPL fit into this
picture? :
http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl

Its the GPL with a CC wrapper...is the CC-GPL considered to be living
within the CC family of licenses? If so, then the CC-GPL is 'compatible'
and the question is answered.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rob Myers | 2 Jul 2007 19:36
Gravatar

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

(I am not CC, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)

adam hyde wrote:

> It would seem the GPL would not be 'compatible' under these terms as the
> GPL does not explicitly permit: "the relicensing of derivatives of works
> made available under that license under a particular Creative Commons
> license"

That is correct.

> The gpl does not do this. However, how does the CC-GPL fit into this
> picture? :
> http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl
> 
> Its the GPL with a CC wrapper...is the CC-GPL considered to be living
> within the CC family of licenses? If so, then the CC-GPL is 'compatible'
> and the question is answered.

Ignore CC-GPL for the purpose of this discussion, that is just CC trying 
to explain the GPL to people. It's a very good idea (CC-FDL anybody?) 
but can be confusing.

> is there anyone that can clarify this? 
> 
> Just to retour...My specific question is:
> 
> Can content under the CC-BY-SA (3.0) be distributed under the GPL? ie.
> Is the GPL or 'CC-GPL' a 'similar' or 'compatible' license as per the
> license statement :
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Javier Candeira | 3 Jul 2007 02:43

¿Dual licensing a bad idea? (was: cc-by-sa and gpl)

Rob Myers wrote:
> If you are the original licensor you could dual-license under BY-SA and 
> GPL, but that's a very bad idea.

¿Rob, can you please expound/expand?

Javier
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rob Myers | 3 Jul 2007 15:30
Gravatar

Re: ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?

Javier Candeira wrote:
> Rob Myers wrote:
>> If you are the original licensor you could dual-license under BY-SA and 
>> GPL, but that's a very bad idea.
> 
> ¿Rob, can you please expound/expand?

BY-SA and the GPL are both copyleft licenses but they are designed for 
different kinds of work and protect different kinds of use. They are 
also incompatible.

Software really shouldn't be licensed BY-SA. It doesn't protect user 
freedom as well as the GPL. In particular you don't have to provide 
modified source code. And if a user makes a BY-SA derivative of the 
software it cannot be used with GPL licensed code (such as libraries).

Art shouldn't generally be licensed GPL. There is a web site of 
GPL-licensed art, and "software art" (programs that are art) should 
definitely be licensed GPL, but media shouldn't be. Since GPL-licensed 
code can work quite happily with BY-SA licensed media assets (icons, 
sounds) and documentation, there is no real reason to separate these 
from the rest of the BY-SA commons.

I agree with Evan that more and more art is being represented as 
software (and data), but I think it is still important to distinguish 
between executable software and cultural works. Ultimately we may need 
some kind of polymorphous license that requires that you publish the 
source of your novel when it's published as a LaTeX document and 
requires that you not add a shrinkwrap license when it's published as a 
dead-tree book.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Prodromos Tsiavos | 3 Jul 2007 16:06
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?

Just to add to Rob's point, I think there is also a practical compatibility 
problem when you dual license a work. Consider the following scenario:

A is a dually licensed (under GPL/ CC_BY_SA) work which is then mixed with 
work B  (which is only CC_BY_SA licensed).

Work AB that will come as a result of such mixing is now miscible ONLY with 
CC_BY_SA works and cannot be dual licensed since it originates from B (which 
is a CC_BY_SA only licensed work), unless B's licensor agrees to such new 
form of licensing making B dual licensed as well.

I think Evan has commented on this issue quite extensively on this list in 
the past.

thnx
pRo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Myers" <rob@...>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" 
<cc-licenses@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?

Javier Candeira wrote:
> Rob Myers wrote:
>> If you are the original licensor you could dual-license under BY-SA and
>> GPL, but that's a very bad idea.
>
> ¿Rob, can you please expound/expand?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Javier Candeira | 4 Jul 2007 00:47

Re: ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?

Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:
> Just to add to Rob's point, I think there is also a practical compatibility 
> problem when you dual license a work. Consider the following scenario:
> 
> A is a dually licensed (under GPL/ CC_BY_SA) work which is then mixed with 
> work B  (which is only CC_BY_SA licensed).
> 
> Work AB that will come as a result of such mixing is now miscible ONLY with 
> CC_BY_SA works and cannot be dual licensed since it originates from B (which 
> is a CC_BY_SA only licensed work), unless B's licensor agrees to such new 
> form of licensing making B dual licensed as well.
> 
> I think Evan has commented on this issue quite extensively on this list in 
> the past.

Thanks! I had missed this point.

Javier

> thnx
> pRo
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rob Myers" <rob@...>
> To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" 
> <cc-licenses@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] ¿Dual licensing a bad idea?
> 
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
adam hyde | 2 Jul 2007 19:54
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

ok...so...um....the CC and FSF are helping who exactly with license
interoperability? I really get that monty python feeling where the
factions are spitting on each other in the arena....

will be see two 'prosumers' sitting on a bench, one asking "is that an
'organisation for free licences'?" and the other replying "no! thats a
free license organsation!... wankers!"

and i won't even get started on asking questions about the FDL...i've
already made up my mind on that one...

adam

On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 18:36 +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> (I am not CC, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
> 
> adam hyde wrote:
> 
> > It would seem the GPL would not be 'compatible' under these terms as the
> > GPL does not explicitly permit: "the relicensing of derivatives of works
> > made available under that license under a particular Creative Commons
> > license"
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> > The gpl does not do this. However, how does the CC-GPL fit into this
> > picture? :
> > http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl
> > 
> > Its the GPL with a CC wrapper...is the CC-GPL considered to be living
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Paul Keller | 2 Jul 2007 20:11
Picon
Gravatar

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:54 PM, adam hyde wrote:

> ok...so...um....the CC and FSF are helping who exactly with license
> interoperability? I really get that monty python feeling where the
> factions are spitting on each other in the arena....

hmm. there is no point in interoperability (as in being able to  
relicense something that was originally under one of the licenses  
under the other): the GPL is intended for software, the CC licenses  
are for works under copyright that are *not* software. as rob  
explained distributing CC-BY-SA and GPL licensed works together is  
fine both under the GPL and the CC-BY-SA. the only 'problem' in this  
regard is the position of Debian legal. as far as i know they are  
still deliberating if they are going to consider CC-BY-SA 3.0 (which  
resolved most of the issues they had with the pervious versions) free  
according to the DFSG or not. one would hope that they will.

> will be see two 'prosumers' sitting on a bench, one asking "is that an
> 'organisation for free licences'?" and the other replying "no! thats a
> free license organsation!... wankers!"
>
> and i won't even get started on asking questions about the FDL...i've
> already made up my mind on that one...

as i said before the GFDL is one of the obvious candidates for  
inclusion in the list of CC compatible licenses. if i am not entirely  
mistaken the incompatibility between CC-BY-SA and GFDL is the main  
reason for the inclusion of the compatability clause in CC-BY-SA 3.0.  
i am not really getting why the GFDL seems to be get you even more  
upset when thinking about compatibility. in the case of the GFDL
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Evan Prodromou | 2 Jul 2007 20:55
Gravatar

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

On Mon, 2007-02-07 at 20:11 +0200, Paul Keller wrote:

> hmm. there is no point in interoperability (as in being able to  
> relicense something that was originally under one of the licenses  
> under the other): the GPL is intended for software, the CC licenses  
> are for works under copyright that are *not* software.

I think one of the common use cases is for copying example code to and
from text or hypertext documentation.

Another is copying sound, images, and video into games or other richly
interactive programs.

As program interfaces become richer and as "content" becomes smarter,
the distinction between what's a program and what's not is getting
harder to make.

-Evan

--

-- 
Evan Prodromou - evan@... - http://evan.prodromou.name/
Attachment (smime.p7s): application/x-pkcs7-signature, 4422 bytes
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Permalink | Reply |
headers
adam hyde | 2 Jul 2007 21:15
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl


> 
> As program interfaces become richer and as "content" becomes smarter,
> the distinction between what's a program and what's not is getting
> harder to make.
> 

I think you already cannot make a distinction. What is, for example,
help documentation that appears within the help menu of an application? 

Doesn't the GPL actually accomodate this with the very first line of the
license:
"The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works."

adam

> -Evan
> 
--

-- 
adam hyde
'free as in media'

~/.nl

http://www.flossmanuals.net
http://www.simpel.cc
http://www.radioqualia.net
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Paul Keller | 2 Jul 2007 20:19
Picon
Gravatar

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

to provide some background here are two links to an article by Mia  
Garlik explaining the rationale behind the changes in version 3.0 of  
the CC licenses. the full article can be found here: http:// 
wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3

On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Paul Keller wrote:

> hmm. there is no point in interoperability (as in being able to
> relicense something that was originally under one of the licenses
> under the other): the GPL is intended for software, the CC licenses
> are for works under copyright that are *not* software. as rob
> explained distributing CC-BY-SA and GPL licensed works together is
> fine both under the GPL and the CC-BY-SA. the only 'problem' in this
> regard is the position of Debian legal. as far as i know they are
> still deliberating if they are going to consider CC-BY-SA 3.0 (which
> resolved most of the issues they had with the pervious versions) free
> according to the DFSG or not. one would hope that they will.

see: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Debian

>> will be see two 'prosumers' sitting on a bench, one asking "is  
>> that an
>> 'organisation for free licences'?" and the other replying "no!  
>> thats a
>> free license organsation!... wankers!"
>>
>> and i won't even get started on asking questions about the FDL...i've
>> already made up my mind on that one...
>
> as i said before the GFDL is one of the obvious candidates for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Prodromos Tsiavos | 2 Jul 2007 20:23
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

Paul, do you by any chance know what is the status of development of the CC 
Compatible Licence list?

many thanks
pRo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Keller" <pk@...>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" 
<cc-licenses@...>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl

> to provide some background here are two links to an article by Mia
> Garlik explaining the rationale behind the changes in version 3.0 of
> the CC licenses. the full article can be found here: http://
> wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Paul Keller wrote:
>
>> hmm. there is no point in interoperability (as in being able to
>> relicense something that was originally under one of the licenses
>> under the other): the GPL is intended for software, the CC licenses
>> are for works under copyright that are *not* software. as rob
>> explained distributing CC-BY-SA and GPL licensed works together is
>> fine both under the GPL and the CC-BY-SA. the only 'problem' in this
>> regard is the position of Debian legal. as far as i know they are
>> still deliberating if they are going to consider CC-BY-SA 3.0 (which
>> resolved most of the issues they had with the pervious versions) free
>> according to the DFSG or not. one would hope that they will.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Paul Keller | 2 Jul 2007 20:25
Picon
Gravatar

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

nope... there were no statements regarding this during the isummit so  
i believe that there had been no movement in this field as of lately.  
but than i also did not really ask anyone... /paul

On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:

> Paul, do you by any chance know what is the status of development  
> of the CC
> Compatible Licence list?
>
> many thanks
> pRo
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Keller" <pk@...>
> To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
> <cc-licenses@...>
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl
>
>
>> to provide some background here are two links to an article by Mia
>> Garlik explaining the rationale behind the changes in version 3.0 of
>> the CC licenses. the full article can be found here: http://
>> wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Paul Keller wrote:
>>
>>> hmm. there is no point in interoperability (as in being able to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Prodromos Tsiavos | 2 Jul 2007 20:30
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

thanks very much Paul :)

pRo
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Keller" <pk@...>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" 
<cc-licenses@...>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl

> nope... there were no statements regarding this during the isummit so
> i believe that there had been no movement in this field as of lately.
> but than i also did not really ask anyone... /paul
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:
>
>> Paul, do you by any chance know what is the status of development
>> of the CC
>> Compatible Licence list?
>>
>> many thanks
>> pRo
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Paul Keller" <pk@...>
>> To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
>> <cc-licenses@...>
>> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:19 PM
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
adam hyde | 3 Jul 2007 10:38
Picon
Picon
Favicon

one last comment on similarity

one last comment from me on the "CC-BY-SA and GPL" issue.

This notion of 'similarity' in the license is a bit of an issue for
claiming that the license is 'human readable' isn't it? 

It took quite a discussion on the list amongst experts to clarify what
is intended by 'similar'. I think most people reading the license would
understand it quite differently. 

adam

--

-- 
adam hyde
'free as in media'

~/.nl

http://www.flossmanuals.net
http://www.simpel.cc
http://www.radioqualia.net
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Prodromos Tsiavos | 2 Jul 2007 19:42
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: cc-by-sa and gpl

I would agree with Rob on dissuading you from using dual licensing, as it 
would only cause the same (and perhaps even more complicated problems) in 
the second generation of derivative works.

best,
pRo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Myers" <rob@...>
To: <adam@...>; "Discussion on the Creative Commons license
drafts" 
<cc-licenses@...>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-by-sa and gpl

> (I am not CC, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
>
> adam hyde wrote:
>
>> It would seem the GPL would not be 'compatible' under these terms as the
>> GPL does not explicitly permit: "the relicensing of derivatives of works
>> made available under that license under a particular Creative Commons
>> license"
>
> That is correct.
>
>> The gpl does not do this. However, how does the CC-GPL fit into this
>> picture? :
>> http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane