input requested: GPL compatibility
2015-03-25 01:38:53 GMT
This final discussion prompt is essentially a catch-all, intended to encourage you all to raise any final concerns about one-way compatibility from BY-SA 4.0 to GPLv3 before we close the public discussion period.
We also wanted to highlight two other areas of difference between the two licenses, though as you will see below, we do not view either issue as particularly problematic for compatibility purposes.
The first is license termination. Both licenses terminate automatically upon breach. BY-SA is reinstated automatically if the breach is cured within 30 days of discovery. GPLv3 is reinstated for first-time violators who cure within 30 days of getting notice of the violation from the copyright holder, and may be reinstated after other violations if it has been corrected for 60 days without the licensor's objection. These differences make it so one could technically have rights under the GPLv3 reinstated but not under BY-SA in situations where both licenses apply (i.e. when BY-SA content is adapted and integrated into a GPL-licensed project). As a practical matter, licensors and licensees in both communities typically deal with license violations outside the strict letter of the license, so we feel this is unlikely to be a real world obstacle to compatibility.
The other difference we wanted to highlight was the option to comply with later versions. GPLv3 gives licensees the option to comply with a later version of the GPL if the licensor has so specified, or to use *any* version of the GPL if no version number was specified, regardless of whether the work has been adapted. BY-SA 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. Because only version 3 of the GPL is under consideration for compatibility at this time, reusers that adapt BY-SA content into GPL-licensed projects would only be able to use GPLv3 unless and until other GPL versions are made compatible. With solid education for both communities and encouragement of clear marking by licensors, we do not feel this should not be an obstacle to compatibility.
Does anyone disagree with the analysis of these two points and/or have other issues to raise before a final compatibility determination is made? Please raise any questions or comments on or off-list as soon as possible. We plan to close the public comment period on March 31.
 Theoretically, one could have their rights reinstated under BY-SA but not GPL, but this does not create the same risk of potential infringement. Because we are only considering one-way compatibility from BY-SA to GPL, the adapter’s license (i.e. the last-applied license) will always be the GPL. If someone looks only at the GPL when using a GPL project that incorporates a BY-SA work, at worst they will they will not realize they still have rights to the BY-SA work.
_______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community