Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Re: [Commons-l] [cc-licenses]...

Erik Moeller

2 Dec 2007 2 Dec '07

1:22 a.m.

(This is a posting to multiple lists.) As you've probably read, the Wikimedia Foundation has agreed in principle to support an update of Wikipedia content from the GFDL to CC-BY-SA, pending a community approval of such a migration. The FSF and Creative Commons are supporting us to make this transition possible. One open issue is the way both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA deal with embedded media files like images, sounds, and videos. The FSF interprets the GFDL so that e.g. a photograph embedded into an article would require the article to be "copyleft" under the GFDL; Creative Commons does not interpret CC-BY-SA in this fashion (at least according to some public statements). The actual clauses are very similar, however, and I believe what is really needed is a license that gives authors the choice of "strong copyleft" for embedded media: the work into which the media are embedded (whether either work is text, sound, film, a rich media mix, or whatever) should be licensed under a copyleft license. Wikimedia could then allow contributors of multimedia to choose this license, and to change files under the GFDL (as opposed to text) to it.

...

From _my_ point of view, the key requirements are:

* It should apply to any type of embedded media, i.e. not limited just to photos embedded into text; * It should, in principle, be very similar to the CC-BY-SA license, except for its provision on "Collections"; * It should be adaptable to as many legal frameworks as possible; * IMPORTANT - I believe it should allow mixing of similar licenses, e.g. CC-BY-SA into BSD -- the Definition of Free Cultural Works endorsed by Wikimedia could be a guideline as to which licenses can be mixed: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition I would like to kickstart the discussion to get a first for such a license - it could be called CC-BY-SA+ - written as soon as possible. :-) Perhaps we should have a dedicated mailing list where stakeholders from multiple projects can discuss it? Best, Erik Möller Member of the Board, Wikimedia Foundation

Show replies by date

Gregory Maxwell

2 Dec 2 Dec

1:53 a.m.

On Dec 1, 2007 8:22 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

One open issue is the way both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA deal with embedded media files like images, sounds, and videos.

[snip]

...

The actual clauses are very similar, however, and I believe what is really needed is a license that gives authors the choice of "strong copyleft" for embedded media: the work into which the media are embedded (whether either work is text, sound, film, a rich media mix, or whatever) should be licensed under a copyleft license.

If a visual artist doesn't want copyleft for images they should just use CC-BY (or better, 'PD'). The purpose of copyleft is to help expand the pool of free content with a tit-for-tat mechanism. 'Weak copyleft' simply isn't interesting in terms of its ability to achieve this goal. When it comes to photographs and other still, and especially raster, illustrations the predominate forms of reuse are verbatim. When there are modifications within the frame of time image they are generally so trivial that they can be easily reproduced by anyone who is interested. The question of "does anyone here want a weak copyleft license" is just the far more interesting one... I do not believe there is any point to having a copyleft license for media which isn't strong. Does anyone here disagree? Certainties the world does not yet YET ANOTHER free content license if it can be avoided. The already existing myriad of CC licensing knobs already create confusion enough as is. :(

Brianna Laugher

1:57 p.m.

On 02/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Is "weak copyleft" not comparable to the LGPL? LGPL appears to have a place; why not "weak copyleft"?

...

The question of "does anyone here want a weak copyleft license" is just the far more interesting one... I do not believe there is any point to having a copyleft license for media which isn't strong. Does anyone here disagree?

At the risk of being stoned... yeah. I just don't consider an article that uses a photograph of mine as illustration to be a a derivative of my work. I don't want an article, blog or book author to have to license their whole text under CC-BY-SA just because they use my image. HOWEVER, I do want them to be obliged to make explicit the license of my work, that is offer it to others under the same conditions. My work, not theirs. That is how I think "weak copyleft" differs from CC-BY or PD. So "weak copyleft", if we are talking about the same thing, suits me well. regards, Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/

Daniel Kinzler

7:51 p.m.

Brianna Laugher wrote: [...]

...

I just don't consider an article that uses a photograph of mine as illustration to be a a derivative of my work. I don't want an article, blog or book author to have to license their whole text under CC-BY-SA just because they use my image. HOWEVER, I do want them to be obliged to make explicit the license of my work, that is offer it to others under the same conditions. My work, not theirs. That is how I think "weak copyleft" differs from CC-BY or PD.

If fully agree - and I think many people actually already assume that this is how it works for images (or at least, how it should work). They actually want their stuff to be used in books, newspapers, etc, without requiring the whole shebang to be put under a free license (which would be both, unreasonable and unrealistic). It would be very good to have this type of use addressed explicitly, and to be able to choose between an as-viral-as-possible license, and more moderate share-alike-but-use-anywhere license. For my own work, I would be fine with the latter, just as I'm fine with releasing software under the LGPL. -- Daniel

Benjamin Esham

10:30 p.m.

Brianna Laugher wrote:

...

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

At the risk of being stoned... yeah. I just don't consider an article that uses a photograph of mine as illustration to be a derivative of my work. I don't want an article, blog or book author to have to license their whole text under CC-BY-SA just because they use my image. HOWEVER, I do want them to be obliged to make explicit the license of my work, that is offer it to others under the same conditions.

I strongly agree with this. It is simply impossible for many content producers—for example, newspaper or textbook publishers—to release their entire works under a viral copyleft license, but including a CC-BY-SA photo with a mention of the license is perfectly acceptable. I believe that an all-or nothing approach here will elicit a unanimous "nothing!" from these commercial content producers: requiring all reusers to release their stuff under CC-BY-SA will be unacceptable, and so they won't use *any* copyleft content. We'd just be shooting ourselves in the foot. Regards, -- Benjamin D. Esham E-mail/Jabber: bdesham(a)gmail.com | AIM bdesham128 | PGP D676BB9A "Given that sooner or later we're all just going to die, what's the point of learning about integers?" — Calvin

geni

3 Dec 3 Dec

12:02 a.m.

On 02/12/2007, Benjamin Esham <bdesham(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Not true. About 6/7? years ago the new scientist ran an article on copyleft. since they wanted to include an OpenCola recipe they released the article under some form of copyleft license. -- geni

Mike Linksvayer

2 Dec 2 Dec

2:41 a.m.

New subject: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Erik Moeller wrote:

...

(This is a posting to multiple lists.)

NB one of the lists, cc-licenses, is moderated. I'll approve anything related to the development of a CC license, and be fairly lenient about what "related" means in this discussion, but really off-topic posts will not be approved. We want to make it possible for all interested parties to participate in development of CC licenses, and super high volume is not conducive to that end. :) See http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-October/006193.html

...

From _my_ point of view, the key requirements are: * It should apply to any type of embedded media, i.e. not limited just to photos embedded into text; * It should, in principle, be very similar to the CC-BY-SA license, except for its provision on "Collections"; * It should be adaptable to as many legal frameworks as possible; * IMPORTANT - I believe it should allow mixing of similar licenses, e.g. CC-BY-SA into BSD -- the Definition of Free Cultural Works endorsed by Wikimedia could be a guideline as to which licenses can be mixed: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition

I like all of your points, including the last one, but it is a little unclear. I think what you mean is that for "embedded" uses, the containing document should have to be under a free license, not necessarily a compatible copyleft license. This would address use of copyleft images on Wikinews (CC BY), for example.

...

I would like to kickstart the discussion to get a first for such a license - it could be called CC-BY-SA+ - written as soon as possible. :-)

I don't know why yet another class of license would be needed -- presumably it could be the next version of CC BY-SA.

...

Perhaps we should have a dedicated mailing list where stakeholders from multiple projects can discuss it?

You're welcome to use cc-licenses. If another list is used I'll encourage CC's jurisdiction project leads to join in there. Mike

Kat Walsh

4 Dec 4 Dec

5:32 a.m.

New subject: [cc-licenses] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

On Dec 1, 2007 9:41 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml(a)creativecommons.org> wrote:

...

* IMPORTANT - I believe it should allow mixing of similar licenses, e.g. CC-BY-SA into BSD -- the Definition of Free Cultural Works endorsed by Wikimedia could be a guideline as to which licenses can be mixed: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition

I agree entirely with this point. (For example, no one objects when CC-BY-SA and GFDL photos and text are intermixed -- the right spirit is there even where the technicalities may not line up -- but people do object when they see ostensibly copyleft material being used in a more restrictive work.) CC-BY-SA allowing embedded use in any work licensed under a license meeting the free content definition provided that the original requirements are kept on the copylefted work would be a good way to do it. (For example, using CC-BY-SA media within a CC-BY article -- fine, but any derivative of the article containing the embedded media also must remain under a free content license.) -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: kat(a)wikimedia.org * Personal: kat(a)mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone

Delphine Ménard

2 Dec 2 Dec

12:11 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

On Dec 2, 2007 2:22 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

I am sorry, I do not read the resolution (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update) the way you seem to interpret it. To me the points are: - It is hereby resolved that: * The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license; => The whole resolution is in any case submitted to the changes brought to the GFDL. * Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will initiate a process of community discussion and voting before making a final decision on relicensing. => If that relicensing (actually, I find the term relicensing is very misleading here, because it seems to say that relicensing will happen and THEN the dicussion will come.) or rather, in my interpretation, if those "changes are applied" or this "migration is made possible", THEN there will be community discussion and the Foundation will ultimately vote on whether the projects will adopt CC-BY-SA in the future. In short I see four steps: - WMF is saying "sure we'll look at it if you make the licenses compatible" - WMF requests that GFDL be changed to allow mass migration to CC-BY-SA - When these changes occur, community discussion and vote will follow - Finally the WMF will say yes or no (I suppose of course by taking into consideration the community discussion and vote(s) ) Your shortcut "WMF will agree pending community approval" does not seem to reflect those steps. Did I understand this wrong? Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will get lost. Please use my wikimedia.org address. NB. Cette adresse Gmail est utilisée pour les listes de diffusion. Tout email personnel envoyé à cette adresse sera perdu. Merci d'utiliser mon adresse wikimedia.org.

Artur Fijałkowski

12:27 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

2007/12/2, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

I am sorry, I do not read the resolution (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update) the way you seem to interpret it.

If FSF release GFDL-X compatible with CC-BY-SA-Y there will be no need of any discussion with community, cause even if WMF projects stay on ''GFDL-1.2 or any later'' it will effectively mean: you can reuse our content on CC-BY-SA-Y. AJF/WarX

5992

days inactive

5994

days old

commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

9 comments

10 participants

tags (0)

participants (10)

Artur Fijałkowski
Benjamin Esham
Brianna Laugher
Daniel Kinzler
Delphine Ménard
Erik Moeller
geni
Gregory Maxwell
Kat Walsh
Mike Linksvayer