+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.

Hen

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