Andre Engels wrote:
As far as I know, this is not true. Creative Commons only allows spreading under the same license, not with more or less rights. Since the GNU/FDL is not the same license, it is not allowed to go from CC to GNU/FDL - or vice versa.
I'd love it if someone proved me wrong, and either showed that there is a loophole (intended or unintended) that can be used and/or could get the "those licenses require basically the same things but in different wording, so no harm is done by cross-licensing" argument into something that would be juridically valid.
There is not single "Creative Commons" license. The project allows you to pick the attributes you want, and then gives you a license that covers them. In the case of the PLoF, they have only chosen to require attribution. A summary of their license is here: http://www.plos.org/journals/license . It allows modifications for any purpose, and since they have not opted for a copyleft clause, derivative works can be released under any license, including the GFDL.
That said, we still probably won't be able to include much. PLoS publishes journals, and journals publish new research. As an encyclopedia, it is beyond our scope to publish research that has not yet gone through extensive peer review.
Stephen G.
On Thursday, Oct 30, 2003, at 15:17 US/Pacific, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
There is not single "Creative Commons" license. The project allows you to pick the attributes you want, and then gives you a license that covers them. In the case of the PLoF, they have only chosen to require attribution. A summary of their license is here: http://www.plos.org/journals/license . It allows modifications for any purpose, and since they have not opted for a copyleft clause, derivative works can be released under any license, including the GFDL.
Jimmy raised the question of paragraph 4(a) of the CC-Attributions license, which is the one PLoF uses: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
=========================== 4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
a. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. ===========================
It appears on its face to a non-lawyer like myself to not be compatible with relicensing under the GFDL -- a more restrictive license -- at all. Can anyone clarify this?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Thursday, Oct 30, 2003, at 15:17 US/Pacific, Stephen Gilbert wrote:
There is not single "Creative Commons" license. The project allows you to pick the attributes you want, and then gives you a license that covers them. In the case of the PLoF, they have only chosen to require attribution. A summary of their license is here: http://www.plos.org/journals/license . It allows modifications for any purpose, and since they have not opted for a copyleft clause, derivative works can be released under any license, including the GFDL.
Jimmy raised the question of paragraph 4(a) of the CC-Attributions license, which is the one PLoF uses: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
=========================== 4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
a. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. ===========================
It appears on its face to a non-lawyer like myself to not be compatible with relicensing under the GFDL -- a more restrictive license -- at all. Can anyone clarify this?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I gather you are focusing on the restriction, "You may not sublicense the Work." You could argue that since you continue to state that the work falls under the Creative Commons license and provide the link to the license, that you have not in fact relicensed the work despite the more general GFDL notice. That specific language overrides general language is a generally accepted rule of contruction.
Fred
how about wikipedia-legal, folks? it's fun to watch players debating laws without being a lawyer, but doesn't help much.
I think this, you think that; unless someone KNOWS, would be nice to cease fire. Or ask the EFF.
grin
how about wikipedia-legal, folks? it's fun to watch players debating laws without being a lawyer, but doesn't help much.
I think this, you think that; unless someone KNOWS, would be nice to cease fire. Or ask the EFF.
grin
That isn't how law works. An experienced lawyer (at least on questions like this) doesn't KNOW and would distrust any opinion that purports to be final. The object is to craft solutions which avoid disputes, do not result in litigation (expensive and stressful even if you win) and move the project forward, in this case permitting use of the material if possible and not too risky.
Since I have used the material I think I will next run it by the Creative Commons folks and see if they think I have it right (and perhaps by the original author too). That gives a clue as to what might be the response should more uses be made of other material under the license.
One only knows after review by a court of last resort, in this case the United States Supreme Court and even then a slight change in the facts might produce a different result.
This sort of knowledge is not encouraged by the Court and is gained at great expense and trouble.
Fred
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:44:49AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote things.
My only question is: are you a lawyer?
If you are not, then it's just a guess.
If CC say "you can change our license of the derivated work to anything else you like" then it's solved, change it to GFDL.
If not, I'm pretty sure *GPL/GFDL denies conflicting sublicensing.
And IANAL. Go, check CC folks about it. Don't debate my knowledge since I have none. :-)
And summarize the results here. If there's any.
g
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:44:49AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote things.
My only question is: are you a lawyer?
I am a retired lawyer. I am not holding out that I did legal research and have formed an opinion you can rely on (and then sue me if I'm wrong). Anyone who uses material that is under the Creative Commons license needs to take responsibility for what they are doing.
If you are not, then it's just a guess.
Anyone's thoughtful look at this language is useful to us. Anyone who can read well has the basic talent needed. An opinion from an attorney could fairly be described as an informed considered guess.
If CC say "you can change our license of the derivated work to anything else you like" then it's solved, change it to GFDL.
Don't think it says that in so many words.
If not, I'm pretty sure *GPL/GFDL denies conflicting sublicensing.
So you think the problem may lie with GFDL rather than with Creative Commons? What language supports that view?
And IANAL. Go, check CC folks about it. Don't debate my knowledge since I have none. :-)
A good idea. Trying out one or two articles and then seeing their reaction might also be useful.
And summarize the results here. If there's any.
Heh, our discussion is not likely to result in a useful summary unless there is a pretty clear cut reaction from Creative Commons. But remember it is the copyright holder, the author, that has standing to sue for infringement, and they need only to make some reasonable construction of the license which would give legal grounds and and you can be in court. (but realistically they are more likely to demand removal of the material)
Part of what we are doing here is building a record of carefully considering whether or not material under the Creative Commons copyright can somehow be used on Wikipedia or other sites under the GFDL. This can help if trouble does result. Our attitude toward the matter is relevant, did we just bull ahead or try to carefully figure out what we can legally and ethically do.
g
Fred
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:44:49AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote things.
My only question is: are you a lawyer?
If you are not, then it's just a guess.
A fallacy! What makes the opinion of a lawyer more valid than a guess?
If lawyers ever start accepting "personal" responsibility for their wrong opinions, my opinion could change. In the meantime I would prefer to not idolize lawyers.
Ec
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 11:17:30AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:44:49AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote things.
My only question is: are you a lawyer?
If you are not, then it's just a guess.
A fallacy! What makes the opinion of a lawyer more valid than a guess?
see [[Wikipedia:Legal advice]].
(I only suggest that guesses of law professionals are probably more based on practice than guesses of laypersons like us.)
I'd prefer EFF and CC folks, but they probably have better to do than debate this.
Peter
There is not single "Creative Commons" license. The project allows you to pick the attributes you want, and then gives you a license that covers them. In the case of the PLoF, they have only chosen to require attribution. A summary of their license is here: http://www.plos.org/journals/license . It allows modifications for any purpose, and since they have not opted for a copyleft clause, derivative works can be released under any license, including the GFDL.
That said, we still probably won't be able to include much. PLoS publishes journals, and journals publish new research. As an encyclopedia, it is beyond our scope to publish research that has not yet gone through extensive peer review.
Stephen G.
The article I did, What Controls Variation in Human Skin Color, was more a summary of other research than original research.
Fred
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org