www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Category B [Was: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?]
Date Tue, 28 Jul 2015 04:27:41 GMT
+1 to your co-mingling description.

I think that's the fulcrum of where the categories are starting to go:

Category A: Akin to Apache, may be co-mingled.
Category B: Does not affect Category A source when not co-mingled. Must be
cleanly separated with warning.
Category X: Affects Category A source, may not be included (mingled at all
:) ) and may only be relied on when a user has already signed up to the
license ('system') or it is easily removed ('optional feature').

[Analogy: A/B/X = compiles, warnings, errors :) ]

There's no reason why Category B has to be binary-only, that's just a
simple line that encourages clean separation. 'Weak copyleft' is merely an
artifact of that being the best question to put this under at the time.

Agreed btw that CC-BY still isn't a perfect fit for Category B. I'd love to
see a list of the CC-BY resources in question coming up. Do we see software
often, or is this more about images and fonts.


On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:

> Let’s step back and look at what inspired the anti-DRM clause.
>   1. First, with respect to Creative Commons 4.0 International
>      (CC-By 4.0) the deed points out that there can be no
>      additional limitations, including technical measures,
>      <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>.
>         There is a link to
>      <
> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Application_of_effective_technological_measures_by_users_of_CC-licensed_works_prohibited
> >
>      as further explanation.
>         In 4.0 Effective Technological Measures is now defined
>      in License Section 1(d).
>   2. The CC-By 3.0 deed points out the same thing, at
>      <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/>. The license
>      does not define "[effective] technological measures" in
>      section 1, however.  The restriction of their imposition
>      to the extent that they limit downstream rights appears
>      to be the same, although in Section 4(a).
>   3. The CC-By 2.0 deed has the same requirement against
>      additional restrictions as 3.0/4.0.  The restriction is
>      covered in License section 4(a).
> The examples that I have seen are with respect to delivery of videos via
> DRM technology that prevent capturing a copy.  The same is with respect to
> eBooks (e.g., delivery via DRM-protected Kindle format on a device that
> enforces the DRM).
> At one point, I saw it suggested that it would be sufficient if the DRMed
> delivery was accompanied by an useful means for obtaining the original
> non-DRM version of the work.  This also seems to be the case with regard to
> Section 3(a)(1-2) of CC-by 4.0.  (I find 3(a)(4) more befuddling.)
> This seems to be the basic situation.  It appears that providing
> appropriate and actionable additional steps to obtain a form of the work in
> which the license permissions can be fully exercised might not be fatal.
> That seems to be more than an ALv2 licensing would require.
> With regard to Apache Projects, I think treating CC-by digital artifacts
> as Category B is useful, even though "weak copyleft" is not entirely
> descriptive of this case.  But in terms of restricting where such artifacts
> can appear, Category B is useful in that it doesn't allow co-mingling with
> source materials of an Apache Project release.
> It is not clear how the "weak copyleft" exception makes sense for the
> CC-by artifacts, however.  Namely, where are such artifacts located?
> Apache Extras?  It is not as if there is always a binary distribution that
> uses/introduces them but the source release would not incorporate them.
> Also, where would these be maintained if authored/derived-from by the
> project?  It would appear that they should be maintained and adapted as
> CC-by, in line with Apache principles.
> I fear I have just created a slippery-slope onto Category X.  Or, put
> differently, it may be prudent for a project to behave as if CC-by is
> Category X and see how to get out of depending on it.
> Sheesh.
>  - Dennis
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Luis Villa [mailto:luis@lu.is]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 17:42
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Creative Commons BY 4.0 license compatible?
> [Apology to non-lawyer members of the list: there is a whole lot of
> xkcd.com/386 ahead.]
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:08 PM Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:
> [ ... ]
> The drafters of CC BY 3.0[1] explicitly chose to make the non-use of DRM a
> condition of the license. As soon as you encumber a copy of the work with
> DRM, the condition has been violated, an infringement has occurred, and
> statutory damages are available. In other words, it is not "meaningless",
> because the author has explicitly chosen to prevent it, even though it does
> not damage the author.
> [ ... ]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message