www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
Date Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:20:13 GMT
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> It would be very helpful if at least one of the many companies represented on this list
would give at least one official reason why they would not accept Apache software that contains
CC-BY-4.0 components.

Meanwhile, the FSF and the Mozilla foundation have published
statements indicating that they have come to the conclusion that CC-BY
is not compatible with the GPL and MPL respectively.  It also is not a
license that has been approved by OSI as an open source license.

Ultimately, it is a policy question as to whether or not we want to be
a universal donor.  For now, that policy is settled.

> I don't care what Apache developers think about this issue.

That's an odd statement.  Ultimately, this is up to the VP of Legal
Affairs, who must answer to the board are held accountable to the ASF
membership.  The ASF membership consists primarily of developers.

There are plenty of foundations which are accountable to companies
which sponsor the foundation in various ways.  The ASF is not one of
them.

> /Larry
>
> P.S. To write this email I briefly interrupted a very interesting YouTube presentation
that is licensed to the public under CC-BY. My thanks to the Royal Institution for publishing
it to almost 150,000 viewers.

I'm writing this using Firefox (MPL).  I write other emails are using
Thunderbird (also MPL).  Both are running on Ubuntu Linux (GPL).  I'm
thankful for all three.  There are plenty of good products made
available under plenty of good licenses.  None of this has any direct
bearing on ASF policy.

CC-BY is a great license for content placed on YouTube.  It is not an
appropriate license for software produced that is intended to be
harvested, consumed, and redistributed under either Free or
proprietary terms.

> Lawrence Rosen
> "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."

- Sam Ruby

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:08 AM
> To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Pei Chen <chenpei@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> > Is CC BY 4.0 [1] compatible with Apache? Just wanted to confirm if
>>> > we can include them inside Apache projects as source which may or
>>> > may not be extended/modified.
>>> > (The BY alone doesn't seem to have the share-alike clause)
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
>>>
>>> ... in other words, treat CC BY 4.0 as category B.  I agree.  In the
>>> process, we really should return to address the following JIRA:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167
>>
>> 'Category B' is currently listed as a question related to weak-copyleft:
>>
>> "Each license in this category requires some degree of reciprocity;
>> this may mean that additional action is warranted in order to minimize
>> the chance that a user of an Apache product will create a derivative
>> work of a reciprocally-licensed portion of an Apache product without
>> being aware of the applicable requirements."
>
> Interesting.  CC-BY up to and including version 3.0 had the following:
>
> "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License."
>
> This has been changed in version 4.0, making versions starting with
> 4.0 no longer weak-copyleft.
>
>> Is the DRM related clause the only CC concern?
>
> I only recall two concerns, one of which has been addressed with 4.0.
> That's not to say that there may not be other concerns, as people tend to stop looking
after they find a problem.
>
>> Is binary-only and appropriately labelled the right mitigation for
>> that concern?
>
> Good question.  A strong case could indeed be made that Category X is more appropriate.
 In any case, category A is clearly the wrong category.
>
>> Hen
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message