[Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

[Brianna Laugher]

On 03/12/2007, Daniel Kinzler <daniel at brightbyte.de> wrote:
> Brianna Laugher wrote:
> [...]
> > After rereading the CC-BY legal code it does appear you (and others
> > who made this point) are correct, and I was quite mistaken about the
> > strength of the CC-BY license.
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
> > "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms
> > of this License."
> >
> > Indeed it seems CC-BY is already the "weak copyleft" I was thinking
> > CC-BY-SA is... CC-BY is much stronger than I realised. I thought CC-BY
> > just meant "include a byline with my name".
>
> No it isn't, there is one important difference: derivative work, i.e. modified
> versions.

Yes, but as Greg argued, images are not typically modified in the
heavy fashion that text is.   The edits that are made, are arguably
easily reproduced and so having them or not having them in the
ShareAlike silo is not that significant.

I think you would recognise this on Commons: the vast majority of
images are only ever edited by the uploader. For FPs and QIs the case
is different, and those photographers and illustrators have good
incentive to use a SA license. But for the majority it's not that
important, especially if any derived works have to link to the
original and state its license. A person seeing the derived work, if
correctly obeying the license, could easily think "bugger that, I'll
just go get the original and make the same changes this chap did, and
release it under my personal favourite copyleft license".

> > Well... now I think shoring up CC-BY-SA to be a strong copyleft is a
> > good idea, since Greg is correct...if we can correct the
> > misperceptions of people like me then I don't see why this idea
> > wouldn't receive widespread support.
>
> I think having a clearly strong/viral CC-BY-SA is just as important as having a
> soft version. Of course, adding yet another license to the mix is not so great,
> but I would hope that having *clearer* labels will clear up more confusion than
> adding *another* label creates....

I think perhaps it is too fine a distinction. There are many
distinctions CC could make but for the sake of simplicity don't, e.g.
educational use, or personal use. So perhaps this scenario makes more
sense:

* Solidify CC-BY-SA as a "strong copyleft" license
* Let or encourage people like you and me to add the additional
freedoms as we like when granting the license. (Commons could have a
template for it, doesn't mean CC necessarily needs a separate license
for it.)

e.g. "This image or its derivatives can be combined with text without
affecting the text's copyright, as long as the license for the image
is clearly and separately stated."

(I think it's OK to use a strong copyleft license and grant additional
rights, but not OK to use CC-BY and demand additional restrictions
[such as derivs must be same license].)

cheers
Brianna


-- 
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/