If I am not mistaken, the important part of CC licenses is that they are not necessarily viral.
For example, CC-by (aka CC-Attribution license) allows the authors of derivative works to change the license terms, as I understand. If you modify the work, you should still make an attribution. But you do not have to license that derivative work you created under the same (CC-By) license. You can fully copyright it, or you can release it under GFDL.
CC-by-sa (CC-Attribution-Share Alike) is a different story. That is viral and requires derivative works to be released under the same licenese. This, I think is clear when one compares two license terms, especially the part 4-b. And here are the links:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode
Sorry if I am mistaken. But if I'm right, you can create some derivative work first, and you can release it under GFDL. I hope someone else can double check the legal code on this point.
regards,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________ See when your friends are online with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
If I am not mistaken, the important part of CC licenses is that they are not necessarily viral.
For example, CC-by (aka CC-Attribution license) allows the authors of derivative works to change the license terms, as I understand. If you modify the work, you should still make an attribution. But you do not have to license that derivative work you created under the same (CC-By) license. You can fully copyright it, or you can release it under GFDL.
CC-by-sa (CC-Attribution-Share Alike) is a different story. That is viral and requires derivative works to be released under the same licenese. This, I think is clear when one compares two license terms, especially the part 4-b. And here are the links:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode
Sorry if I am mistaken. But if I'm right, you can create some derivative work first, and you can release it under GFDL. I hope someone else can double check the legal code on this point.
Hmmm... Actually you may be right there - given that there is a version of the CC license which specifically states that derivative works must be under the same license, it seems reasonable to assume that without this provision this is NOT the case. Which in turn means that we can indeed use it in Wikipedia - editing and merging with other material would clearly make it a derivative work.
Even original works under CC-license (basic license and attribute license only) could be put in Wikipedia that way - the work would be spread by Wikipedia under the CC license 'for the time being', and then 'automatically' revert to GNU/FDL once significant edits have been made.
Andre Engels
From: "Andre Engels" engels@uni-koblenz.de
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Tomos at Wikipedia wrote:
If I am not mistaken, the important part of CC licenses is that they are
not
necessarily viral.
For example, CC-by (aka CC-Attribution license) allows the authors of derivative works to change the license terms, as I understand. If you
modify
the work, you should still make an attribution. But you do not have to license that derivative work you created under the same (CC-By) license.
You
can fully copyright it, or you can release it under GFDL.
CC-by-sa (CC-Attribution-Share Alike) is a different story. That is
viral
and requires derivative works to be released under the same licenese.
This,
I think is clear when one compares two license terms, especially the
part
4-b. And here are the links:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode
Sorry if I am mistaken. But if I'm right, you can create some derivative work first, and you can release it under GFDL. I hope someone else can double check the legal code on this point.
Hmmm... Actually you may be right there - given that there is a version of the CC license which specifically states that derivative works must be
under
the same license, it seems reasonable to assume that without this
provision
this is NOT the case. Which in turn means that we can indeed use it in Wikipedia - editing and merging with other material would clearly make it
a
derivative work.
Isn't one of the conflicing provisions t between GFDL 1.1. and GFDL 1.2 a problem?. 4.b of the CC Attributions 1.0 license requires that even derivative works require more credit than what is required under GFDL 1.2 sec. 4-b (confusingly the same section number).
From the CC-a ver. 1.0 sec. 4.b:
... ..."give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work..."
"...Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. " ...
Wouldn't be true that the above is equivalent to creating an invariant section under the GFDL, (i.e. the authors of the CC work must ALWAYS be listed, even if they are not one of the five principal authors of the modified work) and the original work must be cited with a credit. Ikipedia does not accept invariant sections, no?
Alex756
I have decided to offer the different Creative Commons licenses as an option on Internet-Encyclopedia and have changed the notice at the bottom of the page to this:
"gnunote" => "Unless some other copyright license such as one of the <a href='http://creativecommons.org/licenses/'>Creative Commons licenses</a> has been selected by the original author of an article all text is available under the terms of the <a href='http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=GNU_Free_Documentati on_License'>GNU Free Documentation License</a>. Use of images may be restricted, check the description of the image for details.
This should allow the use of the Public Library of Science articles and material available under any other licence including material available only for non-profit use or otherwise restricted available for use.
As to whether Wikipedia should make a similar change...
Fred
From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net To: wikilegal-l@Wikimedia.org
I have decided to offer the different Creative Commons licenses as an option on Internet-Encyclopedia and have changed the notice at the bottom of the page to this:
"gnunote" => "Unless some other copyright license such as one of the <a href='http://creativecommons.org/licenses/'>Creative Commons licenses</a> has been selected by the original author of an article all text is available under the terms of the <a
href='http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=GNU_Free_Documen tati
on_License'>GNU Free Documentation License</a>. Use of images may be restricted, check the description of the image for details.
This should allow the use of the Public Library of Science articles and material available under any other licence including material available only for non-profit use or otherwise restricted available for use.
As to whether Wikipedia should make a similar change...
Fred
The question is, does invoking the group of CC licenses create invariant sections? Or is it possible to look at this as a copyright notice under GFDL? I am not quite sure.
This,might just adds to the due dilligence that someone has to do if their fork is much more than a mirror of the original site, i.e, wishes to publish a large number of non-transparent (i.e. paper) copies of WP. That begs the question: is the adding all these different licenses with different conditions in the best interests of "free" or "open content"? Not clear to me.
Maybe this is creating a copyleft internet ghetto where everyone speaks about freedom, open content and sharing knowledge, but no one outside the ghetto wants to adapt the material for fear of all the complicated legal questions that relate to licensing conflicts, attribution rules, and fair use provisions may rear their ugly head.
I saw an innocently incorporated song make an independently produced film undistributable because of copyright clearance problems. I know these issues can be devastating to individuals who do not have the resources to obtain the proper clearances who believed that a minor infringement would be tolerated by a copyright owner. Wrong! These issues need to be examined _very_ carefully in order to determine their consequences if the intent is to make this content available for wide distribution with varied uses.
Of course we could just do what is being done with those Dibold memos and just keep posting them on different servers even if those sec. 512 takedown notices keep being sent out for each alleged infringment.
Alex T.
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:09:04AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote:
"gnunote" => "Unless some other copyright license such as one of the <a href='http://creativecommons.org/licenses/'>Creative Commons licenses</a> has been selected by the original author of an article all text is available under the terms of the <a href='http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=GNU_Free_Documentati on_License'>GNU Free Documentation License</a>. Use of images may be restricted, check the description of the image for details.
[...]
As to whether Wikipedia should make a similar change...
As far as I understand "GFDL" is "viral" because it provides that any modifications, copies or any possible use can only result free documents (under the same license).
So using CC would mean that the articles could be copied and used in closed documents, without giving anything back to community. I would not really like to spend my time for someone's unshared gains, you see (see cddb's story, etc.).
I prefer being virally free.
Peter Gervai wrote:
As far as I understand "GFDL" is "viral" because it provides that any modifications, copies or any possible use can only result free documents (under the same license).
So using CC would mean that the articles could be copied and used in closed documents, without giving anything back to community. I would not really like to spend my time for someone's unshared gains, you see (see cddb's story, etc.).
On the plus side (for those who share your viewpoint), this is pretty much moot at this point, because we have nearly 300,000 articles under the GFDL, from thousands of authors we would be unable to track down to request permission for a license change, so a license change is simply impossible without just starting over from scratch.
-Mark
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org