www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Luis (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-167) Move CC-BY to Category B
Date Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:09:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13679233#comment-13679233

Luis commented on LEGAL-167:

"Who has found incompatible restrictions in the CC-BY license where there are none"

It's not clear to me what you mean by "incompatible" here, Larry, since the requirements for
Category A are vague to me, and isn't clear if you're referring here to incompatibility with
the Apache License, with the rules that govern Category A, etc. So in my comment I'll instead
refer to Sam's bullet points:

* "restrictions that are not highlighted on the creative commons summary page for this license."

I presume here that Sam is referring to the requirement that "When You distribute ... the
Work, You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability
of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under
the terms of the License" and parallel requirements for derivative works.

This is the primary restriction (in -BY) that I'm aware of that is not listed in the license

* "These restrictions go beyond what is required by the Apache License, Version 2.0"

The Apache License places no non-attribution limitations on the distribution of the work;
this is a non-attribution limitation on the distribution of the work. So I'd say Sam is correct

* "furthermore has been deemed incompatible with GPL." 

It's not clear to me that this is specifically a requirement for placement in Category A;
e.g., the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) has been deemed GPL-incompatible by FSF (same source
Sam cited) and is in Category A.

That said, I can't see any plausible theory under which CC-BY is GPL compatible; neither CC
nor FSF have ever deemed it to be so.

* "We also have input that this is problematic for proprietary (non-open source) usages."

To be explicit: modern app stores often impose various technological protection measures (aka
DRM) on applications distributed through the app store. Whether or not this is a violation
of CC-BY has never been publicly discussed by Creative Commons. The combination of the term
of art ("technological protection measure"), vague documentation on exactly what the various
app stores do technologically, and the rest of CC-BY's language makes it hard to know what
the "right" answer is. But I certainly think it is safe to say that a careful lawyer would
not advise clients to use CC-licensed material in the Apple app store without separate permission
from the copyright holder.
> Move CC-BY to Category B
> ------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-167
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Sam Ruby
>            Assignee: Sam Ruby
> Summary:
> Careful reading recent versions of the CC-By licenses identify restrictions that are
not highlighted on the creativecommons summary page for this license.  These restrictions
go beyond what is required by the Apache License, Version 2.0, and furthermore has been deemed
incompatible with GPL.  We also have input that this is problematic for proprietary (non-open
source) usages.
> In the ensuing discussion, we have had questions concerning the necessity for certain
terms in our license, questions concerning the viability of the existing categorization of
licenses (A, B, X), questions concerning the validity of legal interpretations of our licensees.
> All these are valid questions, and can be pursued separately.  Meanwhile we need something
until at least one of those efforts are resolved.  My proposal remains that CC-BY licenses
be moved to Category B as a stop-gap solution.  Such a change would not prevent existing projects
from continuing to include such unmodified artifacts in their releases, it merely would require
them to conspicuously state that they did so to allow downsteam consumers to make an informed
decision.  Nor would it completely prevent modifications of such content, instead it would
require separate approval to do so.
> Partial list of relevant prior discussion (feel free to point to more in additional comments):
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8FJmnE21QcS_eP5SnvbLMgp4eKYvT13qEXALJafdoFO_A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3C01f301ce5829%24aed32660%240c797320%24%40rosenlaw.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8HB%2Bj2H1J_WMH1D%3DfQf%2BuG5QE0brv7Fi1%2B1XozKEf%3Dn8Q%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3COFCAE2B77A.4DC34960-ON85257B75.006149FE-85257B75.0061C5FF%40us.ibm.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8FDjKbuzr3Mcns1Xwneydc-fGp6C7ZJ_nY9vvJ4p8LANA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3C063201ce5bdc%2401a730b0%2404f59210%24%40rosenlaw.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201306.mbox/%3C152301ce6267%24ff57f0f0%24fe07d2d0%24%40rosenlaw.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3CCAFG6u8Gvzy%3DN-ezZY%3DOW5XxEp%2B4W%3D%2B7E%2B9fpZWcsxQU%2BjQjXog%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3C06ca01ce5c08%24f8627960%24e9276c20%24%40rosenlaw.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3COF7C4060BB.133DE47E-ON85257B7A.0009A3AC-85257B7A.000C0686%40us.ibm.com%3E

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message