www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Creative Commons again
Date Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:50:29 GMT
On 16 January 2017 at 05:12, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> DRAFT of notice to PMCs. Any concerns/improvements?
>
> ====
>
> To: <PMCs list>
> Cc: legal-discuss@
> Subject: Creative Commons Attribution + Share Alike clarification
>
> Hola Apache PMCs,
>
> Last year there was a discussion on how to handle Creative Commons
> Attribution (CC-BY) licensing on the legal-discuss list[1]. This is a
> license designed for 'media files', by which I mean things like pictures,
> audio, and video. It is not (per Creative Commons themselves[2]) recommended
> to be used for software. At its heart it is a permissive license, but its
> focus on non-software means it has conditions that go beyond the Apache
> license (chiefly the term in 2.5 of 'You may not distribute, publicly
> display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any
> technological measures that control access', and the similar text in the
> later licenses).
>
> Given that, we want to make sure our users can easily switch out CC-BY
> licensing if a concern, and so we have moved it to the same status as the
> Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license. Namely:

Does not read well:
"...  switch out CC-BY licensing if a concern"
does that mean:
"...  switch out CC-BY licensed items if the license is a concern"

> "Unmodified media (for example images, audio or video) under the Creative
> Commons Attribution (CC BY: 2.5, 3.0, or 4.0) or the Creative Commons
> Attribution ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 2.5, 3.0, or 4.0) licenses may be included
> in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses which may
> require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of CC BY or CC
> BY-SA licensed work, please contact the Legal PMC."

I take that to mean unmodified CC-BY may be bundled with ASF products.

> The upshot of this is that CC-BY software should not be included with Apache
> projects, and that CC-BY media should not be modified.

This contradicts that; I'm confused!

> Note that the Creative Commons Universal (CC0) license remains on the
> Category A list and may be used with Apache works, while the Creative
> Commons Non-Commercial license remains on the Category X list, and should
> not be used.
>
> Please follow up with legal-discuss@ if you have any questions, or concerns
> about removing the CC-BY software in your next release.
>
> =====
>
> ?
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> I'd like to mail pmcs@ as a part of doing this. Let them know the state of
>> CC license usage rather than just updating here.
>>
>> Does that sound okay?
>>
>> Hen
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Jim Jagielski <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> 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
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>

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


Mime
View raw message