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:

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.


View raw message