www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luis Villa <l...@lu.is>
Subject Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
Date Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:49:57 GMT
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:12 AM Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Thanks Luis for your response. It is pleasing to see a comment that refers
> to a specific legal concern rather than the meaningless "too copyleft" or
> "too much attribution" or "Mozilla doesn't like it" complaints about CC-BY
> that have been bandied about on this email list previously.
>
I agree that there has been some unfortunate imprecision.

> You referred to CC-BY-4.0 2(A)(5)(b), the so-called "DRM" restriction, as
> the section that concerned Mozilla in its analysis of that license.
>
>
>
> "*No downstream restrictions.* You may not offer or impose any additional
> or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological
> Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the
> Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material."
>
>
>
> I can't explain why the CC folks found it necessary to include this
> language, but it doesn't concern me in the least. The same can be said for
> *any* FOSS software incorporated into *any* distributed software program. *The
> original FOSS license continues to apply to the original work* (the
> "Licensed Material") whether the FOSS license says so or not --- even if
> there is DRM protecting the *distributed* binary version. Section
> 2(A)(5)(b) is surplus as long as the distributor provides source code
> copies of the original Licensed Material.
>
CC explicitly rejected this interpretation while drafting 3.0, and did not
formally revisit that decision during the 4.0 drafting process. They refer
to the theory that a separate copy can be provided as "parallel
distribution", and you can find more about it, including some informative
historical analysis, at:
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0/Technical_protection_measures#Proposals_for_4.0

I admit I find the language of the final draft of 4.0 somewhat ambiguous on
this point, but "what I might convince a court of" is not the same as "what
I would advise Apache/Mozilla to act on"; the former would rely primarily
on the letter of the license while the latter would rely much more heavily
on the stated intent of a peer organization.

Luis

Mime
View raw message