www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Diane Peters <di...@creativecommons.org>
Subject Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
Date Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:43:07 GMT
Hi everyone,

I haven't had time to watch this thread closely, but it definitely is of
interest. I want to make sure there are no misunderstandings about how the
3.0 or 4.0 licenses work, what changed (and what didn't) between the
versions, and whether any changes are of consequence to your
determination(s).

Could I ask for a direct contact with someone who is willing to walk
through the issues offlist initially, so I'm sure we understand the issues?

Thanks!
Diane

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Chen, Pei
> <Pei.Chen@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > That sounds good.
> > Should I propose to the authors to use
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ since it's already
> categorized in category A for now?
>
> I would strongly recommend against that.  There is an open issue on
> whether or not that license is categorized correctly.
>
> If you have a time frame by which you need a conclusive answer to this
> question, letting us know would be helpful.
>
> > --Pei
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sa3ruby@gmail.com [mailto:sa3ruby@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 12:08 PM
> > To: Legal Discuss
> > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__creativecommon
> >>> > s.org_licenses_by_4.0_&d=BQIBaQ&c=qS4goWBT7poplM69zy_3xhKwEW14JZMSd
> >>> > ioCoppxeFU&r=huK2MFkj300qccT8OSuuoYhy_xEYujfPwiAxhPVz5WY&m=g8uSILVa
> >>> > 0ge9Lc7OyoivAjGV3blicn2eVLOYkulMUpQ&s=UMwRm39qoKfsvTQoyYnxkJ09Kyc8p
> >>> > bbvqfLkwWX7AN0&e=
> >>>
> >>> ... 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.or
> >>> g_jira_browse_LEGAL-2D167&d=BQIBaQ&c=qS4goWBT7poplM69zy_3xhKwEW14JZMS
> >>> dioCoppxeFU&r=huK2MFkj300qccT8OSuuoYhy_xEYujfPwiAxhPVz5WY&m=g8uSILVa0
> >>> ge9Lc7OyoivAjGV3blicn2eVLOYkulMUpQ&s=CjT3eCg8VoSFDKXwf-ZIsLVQHWxRCc4Y
> >>> g1X_1fjOveo&e=
> >>
> >> '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
>
>


-- 
Diane M. Peters
General Counsel, Creative Commons
Portland, Oregon
http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters

Mime
View raw message