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
images/content.


> 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.

Luis

Mime
View raw message