[Foundation-l] Creative Commons CC-BY-SA Draft Statement of Intent

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>  CC-BY-SA contains a "later version" migration clause, similar to our
>  use of FDL. I expect that we'd update regularly, since updates
>  typically simply address perceived legal & structural problems in
>  prior versions.

It is good to hear it. But, I would like to hear a couple of
explanations from some, let's say, German lawyer (a German CC lawyer
or WM DE lawyer would be good enough):

- While talking about all licensing issues with the most relevant
Serbian copyright lawyer (who was helping in CC localization), I
realized that "later version" clause is a very problematic one for the
continental law system. However, I expect that it is solved inside of
the localized versions of CC licenses for Germany (or even for Serbia,
but I really have a lot of problems in understanding what is the exact
meaning of one Serbian lawyer saying). So, I am interested in a
fictional scenario: There is a project licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 for
German jurisdiction. How the migration would be solved there?
- Related to this issue, I am interested in compatibility between
CC-BY-SA 3.0 from various jurisdictions. I was asked to switch sr.wn
to CC-BY 2.5 for Serbian jurisdiction (because of promotion of both,
Serbian Wikinews and CC Serbia), but I decided that it is not a good
idea while I don't know the legal implications. However, CC-BY license
is quite simple and may be reasonably described in one sentence.
CC-BY-SA is much more complex and I am sure that we will have legal
cases in the future which deals with their compatibility.
- What are the legal implications of using CC unported license by
person who is under non-US jurisdiction? With GFDL things are quite
simple (while not good): If there are some problems, make an
international lawsuit.
- While it is obvious that newer versions of one free content license
are making to address some new technical and legal issues in the sense
of the spirit of the license, I am wandering who will decide to switch
to a newer license if there are some serious objections: the Board
(like in this case) or the community would be asked?

>  The situation here is not substantively different than with GFDL.
>  We'll accept changes if they make sense to us, and otherwise we won't.
>  The Statement of Intent gives us reasonably broad assurances that
>  future changes will be in the spirit of the license, and specifically,
>  that they will not weaken the copyleft provision of the license.
>  That's all you can really ask for, short of maintaining the license
>  yourself, which has its own problems (license proliferation, increased
>  dependence on WMF as an organization to always act in good faith,
>  etc.).

The main difference between switching between GFDL->CC-BY-SA and a
possible switching between CC-BY-SA and some other license is related
to the commons sense applied to the first one. Forbidding to Wikimedia
to switch to some license more appropriate for a wiki-style
development wouldn't be a reasonable choice of FSF. It is a common
place in Wikimedian relation to GFDL that we chose the best available
free content license which existed in 2001. FSF knows that and it is
willing to help.

However, when we switch to CC-BY-SA, there will not be any stupid
technical issue which should be addressed. And when we don't have any
of problems of such kind, I don't see a reason why someone would
willing to help us.

So, to repeat the question: If we realize that CC-BY-SA 12 is against
our goals, what are our options for switching from CC-BY-SA 11 to some
other license?

You are negotiating now with FSF and I am quite sure that there is a
space for making a deal which would lead to effectively double-license
system of Wikimedia content. Adding an option that content "may be
licensed under CC-BY-SA and under any free content share-alike license
decided by the Board and the community" would be wise enough to be
sure that we will have the option for escape.

>  >  However, I don't like the fact that I've got all important
>  >  informations in private talks.
>
>  WMF has been maximally transparent throughout the process, sharing
>  information from third parties when permitted to do so. FDL 1.3 is
>  still undergoing active revision, and I haven't seen the latest
>  changes myself. The real discussion will become possible when the FSF
>  releases it, which I hope will happen Real Soon Now.

Hm. If I've been informed privately of what are you, Jimmy and Lessig
are doing about an issue which is a matter of all of Wikimedians, I
can't say that it is transparent enough. You are not dealing with
national security or criminal investigation, but with copyrighting
material made by hundreds of thousands of people.