Requirements for a strong copyleft license

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Erik Moeller-4
(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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Andrew Whitworth-2
> 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?

I agree with this 100%! It would quell the people who are worried
about the open-season on image media, and it would give the
text-contributions people more ease and freedom in releasing text.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Dec 1, 2007 8:22 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> 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. :(

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Dec 1, 2007 8:22 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> 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
>
Can't you already mix a copyleft license (like GFDL) with a free
non-copyleft license (like BSD), so long as the combined work is
released under the copyleft license?  If so, this would only be useful
for mixing with other copyleft licenses, which is arguably not all
that important (especially once the wiki-world migrates away from the
GFDL), and can be accomplished by dual/multi-licensing (if the
author(s) desire(s)) anyway.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Mike Linksvayer-2
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Samuel Klein

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Mike Linksvayer wrote:

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>> :-)

Erik, great points and suggestions.

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

Mike, this would be fantastic.  One of my concerns with the current
CC BY-SA is that any time I feel like using such a license, I really
want sharealike to mean "derivatives must grant at least the freedoms/
rights granted by BY-SA, and pass on this clause"... to allow for the
derivs to be BY / PD / &c.

SJ




>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Delphine Ménard
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Dec 2, 2007 2:22 AM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> (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.

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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Anthony-73
On Dec 2, 2007 7:11 AM, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.
>
I was also confused by this wording.  If the GFDL is modified, how
does the WMF even have a choice whether or not to accept the
modifications?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

geni
On 02/12/2007, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I was also confused by this wording.  If the GFDL is modified, how
> does the WMF even have a choice whether or not to accept the
> modifications?

For existing text we don't. However we could modify our copyright
notice to say "version 1.2 but not later" and rate of new edits would
see that using wikipedia under an updated version of the license would
resulted in using rather outdated articles.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Anthony-73
On Dec 2, 2007 8:12 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 02/12/2007, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I was also confused by this wording.  If the GFDL is modified, how
> > does the WMF even have a choice whether or not to accept the
> > modifications?
>
> For existing text we don't. However we could modify our copyright
> notice to say "version 1.2 but not later" and rate of new edits would
> see that using wikipedia under an updated version of the license would
> resulted in using rather outdated articles.
>
True.  Sounds like a recipe for a fork, though.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Anthony-73
On Dec 2, 2007 8:40 AM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2007 8:12 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 02/12/2007, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I was also confused by this wording.  If the GFDL is modified, how
> > > does the WMF even have a choice whether or not to accept the
> > > modifications?
> >
> > For existing text we don't. However we could modify our copyright
> > notice to say "version 1.2 but not later" and rate of new edits would
> > see that using wikipedia under an updated version of the license would
> > resulted in using rather outdated articles.
> >
> True.  Sounds like a recipe for a fork, though.
>
Hmm, on second thought, either way is a recipe for a fork, with the
pro-CC-BY-SA using that license, and the pro-GFDL camp using 1.2 but
not later.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 02/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

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/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by geni
Hoi,
By insisting on version 1.2 but not later you create a fork as well. As much
as some people may  insist on version 1.2 but not later, others myself
included will have quite opposite sentiments.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Dec 2, 2007 2:12 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 02/12/2007, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I was also confused by this wording.  If the GFDL is modified, how
> > does the WMF even have a choice whether or not to accept the
> > modifications?
>
> For existing text we don't. However we could modify our copyright
> notice to say "version 1.2 but not later" and rate of new edits would
> see that using wikipedia under an updated version of the license would
> resulted in using rather outdated articles.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Commons-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
On Dec 2, 2007 8:57 AM, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 02/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Is "weak copyleft" not comparable to the LGPL? LGPL appears to have a
> place; why not "weak copyleft"?
>
I think the argument is specific to images, which tend not to have as
significant of copyrightable changes made to them as software
libraries.  Sure, maybe a newspaper cleans up an image, lowers the
resolution, and converts it to black and white before including the
image in the newspaper, but this is not a significant creative change,
so the benefit of having those changes released under a free license
is negligible.

For software libraries, weak copyleft serves a purpose.  For text,
weak copyleft serves a purpose.  For images, much less so.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Benj. Mako Hill-2
In reply to this post by Mike Linksvayer-2
<quote who="Mike Linksvayer" date="Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 06:41:43PM -0800">
> > 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.

Indeed!

I've been frustrated by arguments that I've heard in the last year in
favor of non-commercial use as sort of stand-in for copyleft for
embeddable images. A stronger and more copyleft-focused method would be
a wonderful improvement over that situation. If it's possible. :)

Regard,
Mako

--
Benjamin Mako Hill
[hidden email]
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Benj. Mako Hill-2
In reply to this post by Delphine Ménard
<quote who="Delphine Ménard" date="Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 01:11:09PM +0100">
> 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.

Right. My understanding is that the resolution past by WMF is, itself,
the request to the FSF to release a new draft of the license that allows
WMF to migrate to the BY-SA immediately and that any conversation about
whether the WMF will take advantage of that option to switch over will
happen after.  Others will be able to use WMF content under BY-SA
regardless of any future decision WMF makes.

I've already forwarded the resolution in question to the FSF board and
ED. I understand that the FSF board approved this migration months ago
(before I was a member). Unless the FSF hears otherwise, things on the
FSF side could happen quite quickly.

If the FSF is supposed to wait for some official request while the WMF
organizes a conversation, that would be good for me to know so I can
relay that to others in the FSF.

Regards,
Mako


--
Benjamin Mako Hill
[hidden email]
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Mike Godwin-3

On Dec 2, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

>  If the FSF is supposed to wait for some official request while the  
> WMF
> organizes a conversation, that would be good for me to know so I can
> relay that to others in the FSF.

Mako, I don't think anyone wants it to be understood that FSF should  
wait until after WMF organizes a conversation. Presumably, the  
conversation will follow from and center on a decision from FSF  
regarding the request from the Foundation.


--Mike




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Gavin Baker-5
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> From: "Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]>
>
> On 02/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

Actually, this *is* how CC BY works. The requirements of CC BY include
both attribution of authorship (including a linkback) and notification
of the license.

This is similar to the BSD software licenses: derivatives don't have to
be similarly licensed, but they still have to attribute the BSD-licensed
code and inform users that it's available under the BSD license.

Quoting the license summary:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
> Under the following conditions:
>
> Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by
> the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they
> endorse you or your use of the work).
>
> For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the
> license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to
> this web page.

For the avoidance of doubt: I'm not making any substantive claim here,
just correcting an inaccurate statement.

> So "weak copyleft", if we are talking about the same thing, suits me well.

AFAICT, the term "weak copyleft" seems to have a specific origin in
software libraries that allow linking without requiring the linked
program to be similarly licensed. Whether or not this is analogous to
the "embedding" of media in another work (as in an image on a page of
text) is probably a matter of opinion. It might be best to leave the
phrase aside and focus on the specific issue of use in context. Quoting
a recent email:

> [Similar use cases] are an article in a magazine, a song on a CD or
> in a radio show, and a TV show on a TV channel. At which point would
> the requirement of a free context stop?

It's arguable that none of these uses invokes the derivative right, so
their "context" (what would be called "the derivative" if it was, in
fact, derived) has no requirement to be similarly licensed. Assuming
this is the case, then the question becomes: in which use cases, even if
the use is not derivative, do we want to require the context of the use
to be similarly licensed? Even this wordy language is rather imprecise,
but I think it's closer to the issue than wondering about "strong" vs.
"weak" copyleft.

(FWIW, although CC licenses have previously been passed to downstream
users through the right of modification, I think it is worth considering
tying this to some different right. Not necessarily that we *should* do
so, but that we should consider it. I see a parallel in the new AGPL
license, where the license had previously been passed to downstream
users through the distribution of the software, but is now also tied to
the accessing of the software over a network. To me, this says that the
important thing is to pass the freedoms to downstream users, and which
uses we tie that to is simply the means and not an end in itself. That's
not an argument for writing new requirements willy-nilly into licenses
- -- we should carefully consider the impact of the mechanisms we choose
- -- but just that we shouldn't fail to consider new means to the same end
simply because we've always done it this way.)

> regards,
> Brianna

Regards,
- --
Gavin Baker
http://www.gavinbaker.com/
[hidden email]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHUwGwtLXQdLhFpekRAlv5AJ9Tt2BMGq2q43ayl7Fr1L4FzGUZ1wCdHfIW
JT5ATCHc5DAHmKbxG5iseVA=
=1hII
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
Anthony wrote:

> On Dec 1, 2007 8:22 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> 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
>>    
> Can't you already mix a copyleft license (like GFDL) with a free
> non-copyleft license (like BSD), so long as the combined work is
> released under the copyleft license?  If so, this would only be useful
> for mixing with other copyleft licenses, which is arguably not all
> that important (especially once the wiki-world migrates away from the
> GFDL), and can be accomplished by dual/multi-licensing (if the
> author(s) desire(s)) anyway.
What I've consistently disliked about any kind of dual licensing is what
to do when the licences disagree.  That is not always readily apparent,
and in the vast majority of cases won't matter.  By the time someone's
work has gone through several generations of re-use he may find that
liberties have been taken with it that were never part of his original
grant of licence.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Requirements for a strong copyleft license

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
It is up to the copyright holder or to a particular project to decide what
licenses can be used for particular material. When multiple, incompatible
licenses are on offer to choose from, you may choose from what is on offer.
Giving the choice for a license is "political". Choices are on offer because
people want it, not because it is reasonable.

The best proof of why licenses are not necessarily reasonable can be found
in the current situation where knowledgeable people assigned a license by
contributing to a project and still insist on differences for *their
*contributions
that are contrary to the original license stipulations on this, a later
date.
Thanks,
    Gerard


On Dec 2, 2007 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2007 8:22 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> 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
> >>
> > Can't you already mix a copyleft license (like GFDL) with a free
> > non-copyleft license (like BSD), so long as the combined work is
> > released under the copyleft license?  If so, this would only be useful
> > for mixing with other copyleft licenses, which is arguably not all
> > that important (especially once the wiki-world migrates away from the
> > GFDL), and can be accomplished by dual/multi-licensing (if the
> > author(s) desire(s)) anyway.
> What I've consistently disliked about any kind of dual licensing is what
> to do when the licences disagree.  That is not always readily apparent,
> and in the vast majority of cases won't matter.  By the time someone's
> work has gone through several generations of re-use he may find that
> liberties have been taken with it that were never part of his original
> grant of licence.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123