Sarah Pearson | 22 Jul 15:05 2014

first compatibility candidate

Together with Copyleft Attitude, Creative Commons is happy to formally propose the Free Art License 1.3 as the first candidate for consideration under the ShareAlike compatibility process.

Per the compatibility process, we have published a wiki page dedicated to the FAL proposal. The page includes an initial comparison of the FAL and BY-SA 4.0.

Over the next several weeks, we will be seeking public input on this proposal. Look for specific discussion prompts on this list, but in the meantime, please feel free to chime in with general comments and reactions.

best,
CC Legal

_______________________________________________
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
Tarmo Toikkanen | 21 Jul 07:01 2014
Picon

Minor typo in 4.0 suite translation instructions

Hi! We in CC Finland are proceeding along 4.0 translation.

In this pdf, which details how to make the 6 variants, there is a small 
discrepancy:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/d/d1/Building_the_4.0_Suite.pdf

BY-ND: Insert “, provided You do not Share Adapted Material” to Section 4(a)
BY-NC-ND: Insert “and provided You do not Share Adapted Material” to 
Section 4(a)

Most likely these inserts should be identical for BY-ND and BY-NC-ND, 
but they have a one word/character difference. Best to fix, unless 
there's really a semantic difference between these two (which I doubt).

--

-- 
Tarmo Toikkanen
researcher, tarmo.toikkanen@...
Learning Environments research group, http://legroup.aalto.fi
Creative Commons Finland, http://creativecommons.fi
Aalto University, http://aalto.fi

_______________________________________________
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

Kat Walsh | 28 Jun 00:33 2014

CC0 French translation published

CC0 French is now published:

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.fr

https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/42967

Congratulations to all of those who worked on this, particularly CC France!

Cheers,
Kat

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
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

Kat Walsh | 4 Jun 21:34 2014

Errata page reorganization

The errata page has been reorganized so that information is easier to find:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legalcode_errata

If you know of any other errors in CC legal tools, please let us know!

Cheers,
Kat

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
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

Kat Walsh | 4 Jun 19:10 2014

ShareAlike compatibility process and criteria published

This is now published:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ShareAlike_compatibility_process_and_criteria

Along with it, we have also updated the Compatible Licenses page to
reflect what is compatible with each license, and what may change in
the future:

https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses

Since the criteria and process are published, we are now open to
proposals. However, we already have two planned for the near future
which we will propose: the Free Art License and the GPL. (This is
probably not a surprise to most people following the list!) We have
been corresponding with the stewards of those licenses to let them
know our intentions, and will put those forward in the near future.
These are the most obvious candidates that we've identified, and we
hope to test our process with these as we put them forward for BY-SA
compatibility.

Cheers,
Kat

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
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

Kat Walsh | 28 May 20:42 2014

Re: ShareAlike compatibility process and criteria: update

We'll be closing this comment period at the end of the day today
(11:59 Pacific Time), so if you have any last minute comments, please
make them soon.

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Kat Walsh <kat <at> creativecommons.org> wrote:
> We are most of the way through our consultation period for the process
> and criteria, which we will be wrapping up on the 28th, and publishing
> in early June.
>
> Based on the feedback we have received so far, here are the things we
> are planning:
>
> 1. We are not going to be specific about the attribution requirements
> of a candidate license: we will evaluate these in a public process on
> a case-by-case basis. (We have one more request to raise in its
> thread.)
>
> 2. We will not require that candidate licenses address ETMs in the
> same way that the CC licenses do. A candidate license should address
> this somehow, but this may be handled differently, or may even be
> implied by other terms in the license rather than explicit.
>
> 3. We are planning to allow one-way compatibility. The strongest
> argument is that many people in our community want the ability to
> remix with GPL works, which is otherwise legally uncertain. Barring
> very strong arguments against or widespread opposition, this will be
> permitted. However, because of the considerable trade-offs involved
> (as identified by many of you in the relevant thread), there will be a
> high barrier to meet for one-way compatible licenses. These will be
> considered where there is high demand or some other specific need, but
> otherwise CC may reject these candidates.
>
> 4. Though there is broad agreement about the undesirability of license
> proliferation, positions are mixed on how to consider vanity licenses.
> We will evaluate these requests on a case-by-case basis, but will
> consider it within our discretion to reject a compatibility candidate
> on this basis alone.
>
> We are also adding a statement that CC may change the process and
> criteria at any time, provided that we also have a public consultation
> before any changes are made; we may find additional areas for
> refinement after the first few candidate licenses are considered, and
> want to allow for the possibility of addressing these.
>
> The changes we've made to the draft document are visible here:
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ShareAlike_compatibility_process_and_criteria&diff=97751&oldid=97633
>
> This draft is still open until May 28, and we welcome further comment.
>
> Alongside the SA compatibility process and criteria, we will also
> publish the revised version of the Compatible Licenses page, which is
> specified in the license text as where compatible licenses must be
> listed. A draft is up on the wiki, and we welcome feedback on it:
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Compatible_licenses_page_draft
>
> ----
>
> Here is a summary of the feedback received on the open questions:
>
> Attribution:
>
> There should be adequate room for differences in attribution
> requirements, as requiring exact alignment would present too high a
> bar. Candidate licenses should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
>
> ETMs:
>
> This restriction should not need to be present in a candidate license
> in the same form as in the CC license, especially because we don't
> have evidence of its effectiveness here. Candidate licenses should
> have an approach, but not necessarily the same one--for example,
> allowing parallel distribution.
>
> One-way compatibility:
>
> There have been many expressions that this should be possible, but
> also many expressions of concern about the tradeoffs involved. One
> proposal was that this should be permitted, but only with a high
> barrier to consideration: specific need, low impact, high demand, or
> other such considerations.
>
> In particular, there is strong demand for compatibility with the GPL,
> which is otherwise legally uncertain, and one commenter mentioned
> having to use GPL for content which was otherwise better suited to
> BY-SA if there was any possibility they would want to remix with GPL
> works in the future.
>
> The example of GFDL to BY-SA compatibility was given as one where
> one-way compatibility had happened with general agreement; the time
> limit created special circumstances but the example could generalize.
> Another raised the same example as evidence that this makes the
> license irrelevant, as GFDL has faded out. The examples of CC BY and
> BY-NC, which are widely one-way compatible, were raised as
> counterexamples.
>
> Perhaps the largest concern is that one-way compatibility may further
> fragment the commons. Dual-licensing was proposed as a solution, but
> this was argued to create fragmentation with more undesirable effects,
> as a remixer could choose the more lax of the two licenses to comply
> with (whereas under one-way compatibility, the remixed work would be
> under the less lax of the two.) However, this concern presents a
> strong argument for limiting the allowability to cases where
> compatibility solves an existing fragmentation problem.
>
> One comment raised the possibility of simply designating the GPL as
> the next version of BY-SA; because many of its requirements aren’t
> suited to the uses of many of the communities using BY-SA, we will not
> be pursuing this option.
>
> Vanity licenses:
>
> There is broad agreement that license proliferation, especially
> proliferation of vanity licenses, is undesirable, but not broad
> agreement on what to do about it: fighting them may be worthwhile, but
> may be counterproductive. A possible solution proposed was to place a
> blanket ban; another was to consider them on a case-by-case basis.
>
> -Kat
>
>
> --
> Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
> IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
> Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
> California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
> CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
> please consult your attorney.

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
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
Kat Walsh | 28 May 20:41 2014

Re: ShareAlike compatibility process and criteria: update

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Rob Myers <rob@...> wrote:
> On 21/05/14 11:02 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
>>
>> ETMs:
>>
>> This restriction should not need to be present in a candidate license
>> in the same form as in the CC license, especially because we don't
>> have evidence of its effectiveness here. Candidate licenses should
>> have an approach, but not necessarily the same one--for example,
>> allowing parallel distribution.
>
> SA has taken two different approaches to ETMs, and there certainly may
> be other interesting and useful approaches. Some of them may be
> improvements over existing approaches and may even be worth adopting for
> future versions of BY-SA. So the requirement that other licenses should
> take *exactly* the same approach to ETMs as SA would not be prudent.
>
> But responses to ETMs should be effective, and parallel distribution is
> not. It should not be accepted in compatible licenses.
>
> Allowing ETMs to be applied to an instance of a ShareAlike work removes
> the permissions granted by the license *for that instance of the work*.
> When all you have is that instance of the work, the license has been
> effectively circumvented for you. And you won't be the only one.
>
> Dual distribution is therefore undesirable both practically (it is more
> efficient to have a single usable version of a work distributed) and
> politically (the existence of a pool of work that refuses or defeats
> ETMs both demonstrates opposition to them and provides a reason for them
> not to be imposed universally).
>
> Please explicitly exclude parallel distribution as an acceptable
> response to ETMs in compatible licenses.

We've decided not to take this suggestion. In the current draft, we
will be leaving open the possibility for ETMs to be addressed in some
way other than the CC licenses handle it, so long as they are
addressed in some fashion.

A method of addressing ETMs that does not seem strong enough may be a
reason to argue against a particular license when it comes up for
consideration, but we have currently decided not to explicitly exclude
parallel distribution as a possibility.

-Kat

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
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

Kat Walsh | 19 May 22:10 2014

Administrivia: mailing list issues; should be resolved now.

Mailing lists hosted on ibiblio--including this one--have been
suffering some issues recently, meaning that some messages ended up
stuck in moderation and others may not have made it to the list at all
(also, some duplicate messages may have made it through).

All of the held messages should now be sent though to the list, but if
you sent something (that was not obvious spam) that did not make it to
the list, please resend it.

Cheers,
Kat

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
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

mezzanine | 11 May 03:34 2014
Picon

CC ShareAlike compatibility regarding ETMs (issue #2)

This message is in regards to the compatibility process for the CC ShareAlike licenses, specifically open
issue #2: (effective technological measures.) It is my suggestion that compatible third-party
licenses should prohibit the applying of effective technological measures (ETMs) and should not simply
allow parallel distribution in the case of ETM-restricted material. Although the GNU FDL has been
mentioned with regard to prohibiting ETMs, it also appears to be the case where the GNU GPL (both versions 2
and 3) prohibit applying additional restrictions to copies of works (whether source or binary code) that
are distributed to others and this has been held to disallow the distribution of GPL-licensed works via
certain distribution channels where ETMs are applied.

More details are at:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement
http://adium.im/pipermail/devel_adium.im/2011-January/007973.html

On the issue of whether one or more GPL versions can be treated as compatible licenses for the CC ShareAlike
licenses, the aspect of the GPL prohibiting additional restrictions (and likely ETMs) may increase the
likelihood of compatibility. Aside from giving advantages to ETM-free platforms, an issue that has been
mentioned before is when a platform incorporates ETMs and a specific party determines what can be
distributed on the platform. In such a case, it has been mentioned that allowing ETMs plus parallel
distribution would give an advantage to the party that controls the platform; at the same time,
completely prohibiting ETMs would avoid this.

See:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/debian_and_the_creative_commons

--Richard
_______________________________________________
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

Kat Walsh | 29 Apr 00:20 2014

Compatibility open issue #4: vanity licenses

The minimum compatibility criteria currently do not preclude “vanity
licenses” from being named compatible. (A “vanity license” is a
license that is created even though no appreciable difference exists
between it and an existing, established  license, and often includes
some reference to its creator.) In the interest of not needlessly
walling off the commons where compatibility of terms should exist, CC
may approve these licenses as compatible. However, CC as a general
matter does not recommend creation or use of these licenses. Because
CC believes license proliferation is harmful to the commons, we may
reconsider this policy if it increases license proliferation by
encouraging others to create vanity licenses that may be deemed
compatible.

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
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
Kat Walsh | 29 Apr 00:20 2014

Compatibility open issue #3: one-way compatibility

One-way compatibility means that you may take content created under
the first license and release your contributions to adaptations under
the second license, but you may not take content released under the
second license and release the material you contribute to adaptations
under the first license. With two-way compatibility, you may go in
either direction. Neither case allows you to simply relicense
unaltered material under the other license: you may only release your
contributions to adaptations under the compatible license.

One-way compatibility may be desirable in cases where two-way
compatibility is not possible--often, because the candidate license
was developed to address a particular purpose or situation that the
other license was not. For example, software licenses often contain
terms that general-purpose content licenses like the CC licenses do
not. These provisions could prove to be insurmountable obstacles to
two-way compatibility, but they do not necessarily foreclose the
possibility of one-way compatibility. Is this a possibility CC should
consider, or should reciprocity be a prerequisite?

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
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


Gmane