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 again
Date Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:33:20 GMT
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 5:17 AM Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:

> 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?

It's not the license per se. Rather, the technical protection measures in
most mobile and many embedded products probably violate the requirements of
the license.

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

As with all open source licenses, other than GPL v2 as applied to the Linux
kernel, risk is non-zero but likely negligible.

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

Changing their entire architecture to remove the TPMs, or removing the

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

For BY, at least, that's the only problem I'm aware of. SA's copyleft scope
may be problematic, but exactly where it falls between Category B and
Category X is hard to say.

Jim said:
"the point, at least for me, is the clear distinction between CC as used
by/for media and by/for s/w."

Maybe a more helpful distinction would be media distributed alongside the
source (e.g., documentation) and media intended to be incorporated into
binaries (e.g., UX icons, sounds)? That gets at the problematic part - the
problems (= additional requirements substantially above and beyond
AL2.0's)  start once it is incorporated into binaries/distributions.


View raw message