www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: Creative Commons again
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:17:08 GMT
Luis Villa wrote on 1/13/17 1:06 AM:
> Reminder that it is still a license for things that will be baked into
> software on embedded systems, which means the DRM clause is still an
> obligation/prohibition that goes significantly beyond Apache 2.0, even
> if not copyleft. So I'm not sure differentiation from SW license
> concerns is completely possible. 

To help us make a better decision, can we describe any (hypothetical)
situations where including non-software code CC-BY content in an Apache
project could cause actual legal difficulties for either an Apache
project *or* for any of the redistributors of that project?

For example: an Apache project includes a CC-BY 4.0 image in a product,
and $BigCo then redistributes that product for an embedded system under
their own proprietary license that prohibits all sorts of things.

- What is the specific issue in CC-BY that their proprietary license raises?

- How likely is this to actually be brought up as an issue by an end
user, or other redistributor of Apache projects?

- If the issue is brought up, how could we or the redistributor remedy
the issue?

Is the only issue relating to "Effective Technological Measures" and the
license bits that refer to that, or are there other significant issues?

- Shane

> 
> Luis 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 7:09 AM Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com
> <mailto:jim@jagunet.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I'd say let's see how it goes... as you say, CC isn't really a s/w
>     license and anything we can do to further differentiate that from
>     our concern about s/w licenses related to our projects would be good.
> 
>     > On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:33 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org
>     <mailto:bayard@apache.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > We had a lengthy thread last year regarding Creative Commons
>     Attribution licenses. The upshot was that we moved it from Category
>     A to Category B.
>     >
>     > I'm not looking to open the discussion of moving it away from
>     Category A, but I'd like to reopen the decision of where to move it
>     to. Category B is designed for 'weakly' copyleft licenses and CC-BY
>     is both not weak copyleft, nor were our concerns related to copyleft.
>     >
>     > Rather than moving it to Category B, I'd like to move it to the
>     section entitled 'Can Apache projects include Creative Commons
>     Attribution-Share Alike works?'.
>     >
>     > The upshot is that this will move software under the CC-BY
>     licenses to a 'talk to legal-discuss@' from its current 'use in
>     binary form'. Media (which we should define better; 'for example
>     audio, video and images') would remain allowed for both CC-BY and
>     CC-BY-SA.
>     >
>     > That maps well to CC's recommendation not to use CC licenses for
>     software:
>     https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software
>     >
>     > Any thoughts or obvious problems this would cause?
>     >
>     > Hen
> 
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>     <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
>     For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>     <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
> 


-- 

- Shane
  https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message