amanda gervasio | 9 Jun 07:44 2015
Picon

(no subject)



--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________
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
Maury Markowitz | 24 Apr 17:37 2015
Picon

Fwd: What version if no version is listed?

Sorry if this dups, I sent it the first time before completing the registration process.

===

If an image is released with text that states simply “CC-by-SA”, but no version is mentioned, is it…

- Assumed to be licensed under the latest version of the license, whatever that may be at the time?

- Assumed to be the version of the license at the date of posting/release?

- Entirely invalid?

Is there any language in the standards to cover this situation?air

_______________________________________________
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
Sarah Pearson | 21 Apr 22:14 2015

GPL compatibility: clarification about attribution removal

Hi everyone, 

As you all know, we're working with the FSF to enable one-way compatibility from BY-SA 4.0 to the GPLv3. All signs point to this moving forward, and we are preparing for an announcement in early May. 

As we were conducting the final analysis, we discovered that I failed to point out one relatively significant point during the public discussion. 

When BY-SA content is adapted into GPL projects, downstream users will be able to look to the conditions of the GPL to satisfy their obligations to the BY-SA licensor. GPLv3 does not contain a clause that parallels the attribution removal clause in BY-SA 4.0. 

This point was raised during the compatibility process for the Free Art License on this mailing list, but we thought it was worth calling it out again in the GPLv3 context. 

best,
Sarah 
_______________________________________________
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
Sarah Pearson | 25 Mar 02:38 2015

input requested: GPL compatibility

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).[1] 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. 


best,

Sarah


[1] 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
Sarah Pearson | 10 Mar 19:59 2015

input requested: BY-SA/GPL compatibility - attribution

This discussion prompt about one-way compatibility from BY-SA 4.0 to GPLv3 deals with attribution.


The specific attribution and marking requirements in the two licenses vary slightly.


BY-SA requires:

  1. creator and attribution parties (if supplied)

  2. copyright notice (if supplied)

  3. license notice (if supplied)

  4. disclaimer notice (if supplied)

  5. URI or link to the licensed material (if supplied)

  6. indicate and link to license


If you change the work, BY-SA also requires you to indicate that you did so and retain any notice on the work about previous changes made to it.


GPL requires:

  1. copyright notice

  2. license notices and notice of Section 7 additional conditions (if supplied)

  3. notices about lack of warranty (if supplied)

  4. copy of the license


If you change the work, GPL requires you include a prominent notice to indicate that you did so, along with the relevant date. It also requires special notices for certain interactive user interfaces.


When BY-SA content is adapted into a GPL-licensed project, the adapter would, of course, have to comply with the BY-SA attribution and marking requirements. However, Section 2(a)(5)(B) of BY-SA 4.0 would enable downstream reusers of the GPL-licensed project to attribute both authors in the manner required by the GPL.


We suspect GPL-style attribution would satisfy CC licensor expectations, but this is ultimately a question for our community. Are there any concerns about the application of GPL attribution requirements to BY-SA works?

best,
Sarah
_______________________________________________
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
Sarah Pearson | 3 Mar 20:54 2015

input requested: GPL/BY-SA compatibility

This is the next discussion prompt relating to one-way compatibility from BY-SA 4.0 to the GPLv3. The focus of this email is effective technological measures (“ETMs”), such as DRM, used to limit access to a licensed work.


BY-SA prohibits application of ETMs by licensees entirely if those measures would prevent others from exercising their rights under the license.


In contrast, the GPL does not explicitly prohibit application of DRM and other ETMs. Instead, it addresses any potential lockdown of licensed works by requiring distribution of source code in a modifiable form. In the software context, this is sufficient to make ETMs moot because a reuser in possession of the source code may freely modify and redistribute the licensed work.


For compatibility purposes, this creates a chance that BY-SA works adapted into GPL-licensed projects could be subject to DRM applied by downstream users who look only at the GPL requirements.

We are looking for input from our community: is this risk of unintended violations of the ETMs clause adequately neutralized by the release of the work in unencumbered, modifiable form?

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
Sarah Pearson | 23 Feb 13:15 2015

input requested: BY-SA/GPL compatibility - license scope

This is the second discussion prompt relating to one-way compatibility from BY-SA to the GPLv3. This email relates to license scope, with a particular focus on how the two licenses deal with patent rights.

As we all know, the tone and scope of the two licenses differ, due largely to the fact that the GPLv3 was designed for use with software and software-like works. Of course, both licenses are primarily designed to license copyright, but each license also covers some rights closely related to copyright, which means the scope of each varies slightly. GPL covers “copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks,” while BY-SA covers “Copyright and Similar Rights,” which is defined to include neighboring rights, sui generis database rights, and other closely-related rights.


The most significant difference in license scope is the treatment of patent rights. BY-SA expressly reserves patent rights to the licensor, while GPLv3 expressly includes a patent grant from each contributor.


Because patent rights are expressly excluded from BY-SA, there is no reliable claim of an implied license to do things with a BY-SA licensed work that implicate patent rights. From a compatibility perspective, this means that when a BY-SA work is adapted into a GPL-licensed project, downstream users of the project would not have patent rights to the BY-SA work. (Although the GPL includes a patent license, the scope of rights licensed by the BY-SA licensor cannot be expanded because an adapter applies the GPL, just as it is not expanded when an adapter applies a later version of BY-SA that licenses more rights than the original.)


This problem is largely academic, given how rarely BY-SA works are subject to patents that would be implicated by simply reproducing or adapting the content. (In fact, CC has not yet been able to come up with a realistic use case, but we welcome concrete examples of those from our community that we may be overlooking.) Nonetheless, as a theoretical matter, it creates a problem because it is possible to imagine a downstream user of a GPL project mistakenly assuming she does not have to worry about patent rights even though a BY-SA work is adapted into the project.


We have asked the FSF to weigh in on this issue. We are also curious what all of you think. Does the unlikely but serious risk of patent problems for downstream users outweigh the benefits of compatibility? Can we do enough to alleviate this risk with proper education for reusers?


We look forward to your input.
_______________________________________________
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
Sarah Pearson | 5 Feb 17:32 2015

input requested: GPL/BY-SA compatibility - source

This is the first of several discussion prompts we will be sending about one-way compatibility from BY-SA 4.0 to GPLv3. This particular email addresses the source requirement in GPL and how it would work if one-way compatibility is declared.


As many have pointed out on this list over the last several days, the GPL requires that works be distributed with source or that source be made available (with “source” being the preferred form for making modifications to the work).


BY-SA does not impose a similar requirement. Instead, BY-SA licensors are free to distribute their works in any format, whether or not modifiable.


If one-way compatibility is declared, this will not change.  No new obligations would be imposed under the BY-SA license, either upon the original licensor or any downstream adapter who wishes to license their contributions under the GPL instead of BY-SA. This is the BY-SA side of the equation.  


On the GPL side, those who adapt BY-SA works and choose to license their contributions under the GPL would, however, still have to comply with the GPL obligation to distribute or make available the work in the preferred form for making modifications. If a particular adapter cannot do this because she never received modifiable format from the BY-SA licensor and/or cannot convert the content to modifiable format, then that person would not be able to take advantage of the one-way compatibility declaration and use the GPL. This is our understanding of how one-way compatibility will operate from the GPL side of the equation, though it is ultimately a matter for FSF to opine on formally as GPL's steward.


Assuming this is the right interpretation, the next question is what actually constitutes the preferred form for making modifications for works other than software (musical recordings, text, photos, etc.). This is not as simple of a question for content as it is for software. The answer will ultimately depend once again on FSF's interpretation as steward.


We have been in touch with FSF about obtaining a formal pronouncement on these issues, and we look forward to hearing from them during this process on this list. In the meantime, we look forward to hearing more from all of you about how you think these issues might play out in practice.

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
Kat Walsh | 3 Feb 01:49 2015

FYI: changing hats

Greetings! Today was my last day at Creative Commons, and so anything
else you may see me post to this list is personal opinions only.
(Since I have been on this list for nearly a decade I have no
intentions of unsubscribing!)

For any remaining issues where you have been corresponding with me
where you need someone from CC, please write to
legal@...

If you just want to hear legal ramblings that will fill your inbox
with analysis, minutiae, and the occasional awful pun, please continue
to write me at my personal address, kat@...

Cheers,
Kat

--
_______________________________________________
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

Sarah Pearson | 29 Jan 22:13 2015

BY-SA compatibility proposal: GPLv3

Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation are pleased to formally propose the GNU General Public License v.3 as the next candidate for consideration under the ShareAlike compatibility process. Note that we are pursuing one-way compatibility only, meaning BY-SA works could be adapted and GPLv3 applied, but not vice-versa.

This proposal is rooted in the growing (albeit niche) need for a solution to the melding of content and code in certain domains, such as gaming. Developers sometimes abstain from integrating BY-SA content into GPL-licensed software projects because of uncertainty about how the two copyleft licenses interact, and there is reluctance to use BY-SA for code due to CC’s explicit discouragement from doing so. This obstacle to reuse and remix of BY-SA content in projects under a license so similar in substance and spirit is at the heart of the problem the compatibility mechanism in BY-SA was designed to solve.


Nonetheless, there are certainly differences between the two licenses, especially given that one was designed for software and one explicitly was not. We have created a wiki page for the proposal, which includes an initial comparison of the two licenses.


This email marks the opening of the public discussion on this mailing list. We will be sending out specific discussion prompts on major topics in the coming weeks, but we encourage you to provide input at any time on- or off-list.

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
Kat Walsh | 23 Dec 23:41 2014

Norwegian translation of 4.0 published

Congratulations to CC Norway (and particularly Gisle Hannemyr) on the Norwegian translation of the 4.0 license suite!

Our blog post is here:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/44602

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

Gmane