Title: starter material on cc-by-sa
included as separate file and new part, but could be inserted in overall document/book structure differently note visible warning at beginning of part, numerous FIXME comments
Under review
There are no reviewers
git pull https://k.copyleft.org/guide-mlinksva cc-by-sa
2014-11-19 21:41:10
Mike Linksvayer (mlinksva)
ml@gondwanaland.com
Git pull requests don't support updates yet.
Pull Request Reviewers
Potential Reviewers
Click to add the repository owner as reviewer:
12 comments (11 inline, 1 general)
Showing 3 commits
3 2015-04-03 00:14:12
mlinksva
1c79e97b2cc4 cc-by-sa
add a couple self-citations expanding on assertions made
2 2015-04-03 00:14:12
mlinksva
45ad7db9efb4
spel
1 2015-04-03 00:14:12
mlinksva
694510f54fba
starter material on cc-by-sa included as separate file and new part, but could be inserted in overall document/book structure differently note visible warning at beginning of part, numerous FIXME comments
Common ancestor: 26def8538a10
3 files changed with 721 insertions and 1 deletions:
↑ Collapse Diff ↑
Makefile | next cc-by-sa
...
 
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ ifndef WEB_INSTALL_DIR
8 8
 
WEB_INSTALL_DIR = /path/to/html/install/directory
9 9
 
endif
10 10
 

	
11
 
LATEX_INPUT_FILES = $(BOOK_BASE).tex compliance-guide.tex license-texts.tex enforcement-case-studies.tex gpl-lgpl.tex third-party-citations.tex
11
 
LATEX_INPUT_FILES = $(BOOK_BASE).tex compliance-guide.tex license-texts.tex enforcement-case-studies.tex gpl-lgpl.tex third-party-citations.tex cc-by-sa.tex
12 12
 
BOOK_CLASS_FILE = gpl-book.cls
13 13
 

	
14 14
 
CSS_FILES = css/*.css
cc-by-sa.tex | Added cc-by-sa
 
new file 100644
1
 
' cc-by-sa.tex                                                  -*- LaTeX -*-
2
 
%      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of CC-BY-SA course
3
 
%
4
 
% Copyright (C) 2014                   Mike Linksvayer
5
 

	
6
 
% License: CC-By-SA-4.0
7
 

	
8
 
% The copyright holders hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify, convey,
9
 
% Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
10
 
% Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.
11
 

	
12
 
% This text is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
13
 
% WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
14
 
% MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
15
 

	
16
 
% You should have received a copy of the license with this document in
17
 
% a file called 'CC-By-SA-4.0.txt'.  If not, please visit
18
 
% https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode to receive
19
 
% the license text.
20
 

	
21
 
\part{Detailed Analysis of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses}
22
 

	
23
 
{\parindent 0in
24
 
\tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses''}{This part} is: \\
25
 
\begin{tabbing}
26
 
Copyright \= \copyright{} 2014 \hspace{.1mm} \=  \kill
27
 
Copyright \> \copyright{} 2014 \>  Mike Linksvayer
28
 
\end{tabbing}
29
 

	
30
 

	
31
 
\vspace{.3in}
32
 

	
33
 
\begin{center}
34
 
Authors of \tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses''}{this part} are: \\
35
 
Mike Linksvayer
36
 

	
37
 
\vspace{.2in}
38
 

	
39
 
Copy editors of this part include: \\
40
 
You Please!
41
 

	
42
 
\vspace{.2in}
43
 

	
44
 

	
45
 
The copyright holders of \tutorialpartsplit{``Detailed Analysis of the GNU GPL and Related Licenses''}{this part} hereby grant the freedom to copy, modify,
46
 
convey, Adapt, and/or redistribute this work under the terms of the Creative
47
 
Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International License.  A copy of that
48
 
license is available at
49
 
\url{https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode}.
50
 
\end{center}
51
 
}
52
 

	
53
 
\bigskip
54
 

	
55
 
\tutorialpartsplit{This tutorial}{This part of the tutorial} gives a
56
 
comprehensive explanation of the most popular free-as-in-freedom copyright
57
 
licenses for non-software works, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (``CC-BY-SA'', or sometimes just
58
 
``BY-SA'') -- with an emphasis on the current version 4.0 (``CC-BY-SA-4.0'').
59
 

	
60
 
Upon completion of this part of the tutorial, readers can expect
61
 
to have learned the following:
62
 

	
63
 
\begin{itemize}
64
 

	
65
 
  \item The history and role of copyleft licenses for non-software works.
66
 
  \item The differences between the GPL and CC-BY-SA, especially with respect to copyleft policy.
67
 
  \item The basic differences between CC-BY-SA versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 4.0.
68
 
  \item An understanding of how CC-BY-SA-4.0 implements copyleft.
69
 
  \item Where to find more resources about CC-BY-SA compliance.
70
 

	
71
 
\end{itemize}
72
 

	
73
 
% FIXME this list should be more aggressive, but material is not yet present
74
 

	
75
 
\textbf{WARNING: As of November 2014 this part is brand new, and badly needs review, referencing, expansion, error correction, and more.}
76
 

	
77
 

	
78
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79
 
% END OF ABSTRACTS SECTION
80
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
81
 
% START OF COURSE
82
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
83
 

	
84
 

	
85
 
\chapter{Freedom as in Free Culture, Documentation, Education...}
86
 

	
87
 
Critiques of copyright's role in concentrating power over and
88
 
making culture inaccessible have existed throughout the history
89
 
of copyright. Few contemporary arguments about ``copyright in the
90
 
digital age'' have not already been made in the 1800s or before.
91
 
Though one can find the occasional ad hoc ``anti-copyright'', ``no rights
92
 
reserved'', or pro-sharing statement accompanying a publication,
93
 
use of formalized public licenses for non-software works seems to
94
 
have begun only after the birth of the free software movement and of
95
 
widespread internet access among elite populations.
96
 

	
97
 
Although they have much older antecedents, contemporary movements
98
 
to create, share, and develop policy encouraging ``cultural
99
 
commons'', ``open educational resources'', ``open access
100
 
scientific publication'' and more, have all come of age in the
101
 
last 10-15 years -- after the huge impact of free software was
102
 
unmistakable. Additionally, these movements have tended to emphasize
103
 
access, with permissions corresponding to the four freedoms of
104
 
free software and the use of fully free public licenses as good
105
 
but optional.
106
 

	
107
 
It's hard not to observe that it seems the free software movement
108
 
arose more or less shortly after as it became desirable (due to changes
109
 
in the computing industry and software becoming unambiguously subject
110
 
to copyright in the United States by 1983), but non-software movements
111
 
for free-as-in-freedom knowledge only arose after they became more
112
 
or less inevitable, and only begrudgingly at that. Had a free culture
113
 
``constructed commons'' movement been successful prior to the birth
114
 
of free software, the benefits to computing would have been great --
115
 
consider the burdens of privileged access to proprietary culture for
116
 
proprietary software through DRM and other mechanisms, toll access
117
 
to computer science literature, and development of legal mechanisms
118
 
and policy through pioneering trial-and-error.
119
 

	
120
 
Alas, counterfactual optimism does not change the present -- but might
121
 
embolden our visions of what freedom can be obtained and defended going
122
 
forward. Copyleft policy will surely continue to be an important and
123
 
controversial factor, so it's worth exploring the current version of
124
 
the most popular copyleft license intended for use with non-software
125
 
works, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
126
 
(CC-BY-SA-4.0), the focus of this tutorial.
127
 

	
128
 

	
129
 
\section{Free Definitions}
130
 

	
131
 
When used to filter licenses, the Free Software Definition and
132
 
Open Source Definition have nearly identical results. For licenses
133
 
primarily intended for non-software works, the Definition of Free
134
 
Cultural Works and Open Definition similarly have identical results,
135
 
both with each other and with the software definitions which they
136
 
imitate. All copyleft licenses for non-software works must be
137
 
``free'' and ``open'' per these definitions.
138
 

	
139
 
There are various other definitions of ``open access'', ``open
140
 
content'', and ``open educational resources'' which are more subject
141
 
to interpretation or do not firmly require the equivalent of all four
142
 
freedoms of the free software definition. While these definitions
143
 
are not pertinent to circumscribing the concept of copyleft -- which
144
 
is about enforcing all four freedoms, for everyone. But copyleft
145
 
licenses for non-software works are usually considered ``open''
146
 
per these other definitions, if they are considered at all.
147
 

	
148
 
The open access to scientific literature movement, for example,
149
 
seems to have settled into advocacy for non-copyleft free licenses
150
 
(CC-BY) on one hand, and acceptance of highly restrictive licenses
151
 
or access without other permissions on the other. This creates
152
 
practical problems: for example, nearly all scientific literature
153
 
either may not be incorporated into Wikipedia (which uses CC-BY-SA)
154
 
or may not incorporate material developed on Wikipedia -- both of
155
 
which do happen, when the licenses allow it. This tutorial is not
156
 
the place to propose solutions, but let this problem be a motivator
157
 
for encouraging more widespread understanding of copyleft policy.
158
 

	
159
 

	
160
 
\section{Non-software Copylefts}
161
 

	
162
 
Copyleft is a compelling concept, so unsurprisingly there have been
163
 
many attempts to apply it to non-software works -- starting with use
164
 
of GPLv2 for documentation, then occasionally for other texts, and
165
 
art in various media. Although the GPL was and is perfectly usable for
166
 
any work subject to copyright, several factors were probably important
167
 
in preventing it from being the dominant copyleft outside of software:
168
 

	
169
 
\begin{itemize}
170
 

	
171
 
  \item the GPL is clearly intended first as a software license, thus
172
 
requiring some perspective to think of applying to non-software
173
 
works;
174
 
  \item the FSF's concern is software, and the organization has
175
 
not strongly advocated for using the GPL for non-software works;
176
 
  \item further due
177
 
to the (now previous) importance of its hardcopy publishing business
178
 
and desire to retain the ability to take legal action against people
179
 
who might modify its statements of opinion, FSF even developed a
180
 
non-GPL copyleft license specifically for documentation, the Free
181
 
Documentation License (FDL; which ceases to be free and thus is not
182
 
a copyleft if its ``invariant sections'' and similar features are
183
 
used);
184
 
  \item a large cultural gap and lack of population overlap between
185
 
free software and other movements has limited knowledge transfer and
186
 
abetted reinvention and relearning;
187
 
  \item the question of what constitutes source
188
 
(``preferred form of the work for making modifications'') for many
189
 
non-software works.
190
 

	
191
 
\end{itemize}
192
 

	
193
 
As a result, several copyleft licenses for non-software works were
194
 
developed, even prior to the existence of Creative Commons. These
195
 
include the aforementioned FDL (1998), Design Science License (1999),
196
 
Open Publication License (1999; like the FDL it has non-free options),
197
 
Free Art License (2000), Open Game License (2000; non-free options),
198
 
EFF Open Audio License (2001), LinuxTag Green OpenMusic License (2001;
199
 
non-free options) and the QING Public License (2002). Additionally
200
 
several copyleft licenses intended for hardware designs were proposed
201
 
starting in the late 1990s if not sooner (the GPL was then and is now
202
 
also commonly used for hardware designs, as is now CC-BY-SA).\footnote{See \url{http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2012/01/10/open-hardware-licenses-history/}.}
203
 

	
204
 
At the end of 2002 Creative Commons launched with 11 1.0 licenses
205
 
and a public domain dedication. The 11 licenses consisted of every
206
 
non-mutually exclusive combination of at least one of the Attribution
207
 
(BY), NoDerivatives (ND), NonCommercial (NC), and ShareAlike
208
 
(SA) conditions (ND and SA are mutually exclusive; NC and ND are
209
 
non-free). Three of those licenses were free (as was the public domain
210
 
dedication), two of them copyleft: CC-SA-1.0 and CC-BY-SA-1.0.
211
 

	
212
 
Creative Commons licenses with the BY condition were more popular, so the 5
213
 
without (including CC-SA) were not included in version 2.0 of the
214
 
licenses. Although CC-SA had some advocates, all who felt
215
 
very strongly in favor of free-as-in-freedom, its incompatibility
216
 
with CC-BY-SA (meaning had CC-SA been widely used, the copyleft pool
217
 
of works would have been further fragmented) and general feeling that
218
 
Creative Commons had created too many licenses led copyleft advocates who hoped to
219
 
leverage Creative Commons to focus on CC-BY-SA.
220
 

	
221
 
Creative Commons began with a small amount of funding and notoriety, but its
222
 
predecessors had almost none (FSF and EFF had both, but their entries
223
 
were not major focuses of those organizations), so Creative Commons licenses
224
 
(copyleft and non-copyleft, free and non-free) quickly came to
225
 
dominate the non-software public licensing space. The author of the
226
 
Open Publication License came to recommend using Creative Commons licenses, and the
227
 
EFF declared version 2.0 of the Open Audio License compatible with
228
 
CC-BY-SA and suggested using the latter. Still, at least one copyleft
229
 
license for ``creative'' works was released after Creative Commons launched: the
230
 
Against DRM License (2006), though it did not achieve wide adoption.
231
 
Finally a font-specific copyleft license (SIL Open Font License) was introduced
232
 
in 2005 (again the GPL, with a ``font exception'', was and is now
233
 
also used for fonts).
234
 

	
235
 
Although CC-BY-SA was used for licensing ``databases'' almost from
236
 
its launch, and still is, copyleft licenses specifically intended to be
237
 
used for databases were proposed starting from the mid-2000s. The most
238
 
prominent of those is the Open Database License (ODbL; 2009). As we
239
 
can see public software licenses following the subjection of software
240
 
to copyright, interest in public licenses for databases followed the
241
 
EU database directive mandating ``sui generis database rights'',
242
 
which began to be implemented in member state law starting from
243
 
1998. How CC-BY-SA versions address databases is covered below.
244
 

	
245
 
\subsection{Aside on share-alike non-free therefore non-copylefts}
246
 

	
247
 
Many licenses intended for use with non-software works include the
248
 
``share-alike'' aspect of copyleft: if adaptations are distributed,
249
 
to comply with the license they must be offered under the same terms.
250
 
But some (excluding those discussed above) do not grant users the
251
 
equivalent of all four software freedoms. Such licenses aren't
252
 
true copylefts, as they retain a prominent exclusive property
253
 
right aspect for purposes other than enforcing all four freedoms
254
 
for everyone. What these licenses create are ``semicommons'' or
255
 
mixed private property/commons regimes, as opposed to the commons
256
 
created by all free licenses, and protected by copyleft licenses. One
257
 
reason non-free public licenses might be common outside software, but
258
 
rare for software, is that software more obviously requires ongoing
259
 
maintenance.\footnote{For a slightly longer version of this argument, see \href{http://freebeer.fscons.org/freebeer-1.2.pdf#chapter.2}{Free Culture in Relation to Software
260
 
Freedom}.} Without control concentrated through copyright assignment
261
 
or highly asymmetric contributor license agreements, multi-contributor
262
 
maintenance quickly creates an ``anticommons'' -- e.g., nobody has
263
 
adequate rights to use commercially.
264
 

	
265
 
These non-free share-alike licenses often aggravate freedom and
266
 
copyleft advocates as the licenses sound attractive, but typically
267
 
are confusing, probably do not help and perhaps stymie the cause of
268
 
freedom. There is an argument that non-free licenses offer conservative
269
 
artists, publishers, and others the opportunity to take baby steps,
270
 
and perhaps support better policy when they realize total control is
271
 
not optimal, or to eventually migrate to free licenses. Unfortunately
272
 
no rigorous analysis of any of these conjectures. The best that
273
 
can be done might be to promote education about and effective use
274
 
of free copyleft licenses (as this tutorial aims to do) such that
275
 
conjectures about the impact of non-free licenses become about as
276
 
interesting as the precise terms of proprietary software EULAs --
277
 
demand freedom instead.
278
 

	
279
 
In any case, some of these non-free share-alike licenses (also
280
 
watch out for aforementioned copyleft licenses with non-free and thus
281
 
non-copyleft options) include: Open Content License (1998), Free Music
282
 
Public License (2001), LinuxTag Yellow, Red, and Rainbow OpenMusic
283
 
Licenses (2001), Open Source Music License (2002), Creative Commons
284
 
NonCommercial-ShareAlike and Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
285
 
Licenses (2002), Common Good Public License (2003), and Peer Production
286
 
License (2013). CC-BY-NC-SA is by far the most widespread of these,
287
 
and has been versioned with the other Creative Commons licenses, through the current
288
 
version 4.0 (2013).
289
 

	
290
 
\chapter{Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike}
291
 

	
292
 
The remainder of this tutorial
293
 
exclusively concerns the most widespread copyleft license intended
294
 
for non-software works, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
295
 

	
296
 
(CC-BY-SA). But, there are actually many CC-BY-SA licenses -- 5
297
 
versions (6 if you count version 2.1, a bugfix for a few jurisdiction
298
 
``porting'' mistakes), ports to 60 jurisdictions -- 96 distinct
299
 
CC-BY-SA licenses in total. After describing CC-BY-SA and how it
300
 
differs from the GPL at a high level, we'll have an overview of the
301
 
various CC-BY-SA licenses, then a section-by-section walkthrough of
302
 
the most current and most clear of them -- CC-BY-SA-4.0.
303
 

	
304
 
CC-BY-SA allows anyone to share and adapt licensed material, for
305
 
any purpose, subject to providing credit and releasing adaptations
306
 
under the same terms. The preceding sentence is a severe abridgement
307
 
of the ``human readable'' license summary or ``deed'' provided by
308
 
Creative Commons at the canonical URL for one of the CC-BY-SA licenses
309
 
-- the actual license or ``legalcode'' is a click away. But this
310
 
abridgement, and the longer the summary provided by Creative Commons
311
 
are accurate in that they convey CC-BY-SA is a free, copyleft license.
312
 

	
313
 
\section{GPL and CC-BY-SA differences}
314
 

	
315
 
% FIXME this section ought refernence GPL portion of tutorial extensively
316
 

	
317
 
There are several differences between the GPL and CC-BY-SA that are
318
 
particularly pertinent to their analysis as copyleft licenses.
319
 

	
320
 
The most obvious such difference is that CC-BY-SA does not require
321
 
offering works in source form, that is their preferred form for making
322
 
modifications. Thus CC-BY-SA makes a huge tradeoff relative to the
323
 
GPL -- CC-BY-SA dispenses with a whole class of compliance questions
324
 
which are more ambiguous for some creative works than they are for most
325
 
software -- but in so doing it can be seen as a much weaker copyleft.
326
 

	
327
 
Copyleft is sometimes described as a ``hack'' or ``judo move''
328
 
on copyright, but the GPL makes two moves, though it can be hard to
329
 
notice they are conceptually different moves, without the contrast
330
 
provided by a license like CC-BY-SA, which only substantially makes
331
 
one move. The first move is to neutralize copyright restrictions --
332
 
adaptations, like the originally licensed work, will effectively
333
 
not be private property (of course they are subject to copyright,
334
 
but nobody can exercise that copyright to prevent others' use). If
335
 
copyright is a privatized regulatory system (it is), the first move
336
 
is deregulatory. The second move is regulatory -- the GPL requires
337
 
offer of source form, a requirement that would not hold if copyright
338
 
disappeared, absent a different regulatory regime which mandated source
339
 
revelation (one can imagine such a regime on either ``pragmatic''
340
 
grounds, e.g., in the interest of consumer protection, or on the
341
 
grounds of enforcing software freedom as a universal human right).
342
 

	
343
 
% FIXME analysis of differences in copyleft scope (eg interplay of
344
 
% derivative works, modified copies, collections, aggregations, containers) would
345
 
% be good here but might be difficult to avoid novel research
346
 

	
347
 
CC-BY-SA makes the first move\footnote{See
348
 
\url{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/ShareAlike_interpretation}.} but adds
349
 
the second in a limited fashion. It does not require offer of preferred
350
 
form for modification nor any variation thereof (e.g., the FDL
351
 
requires access to a ``transparent copy''). CC-BY-SA does prohibit
352
 
distribution with ``effective technical measures'' (i.e., digital
353
 
restrictions management or DRM) if doing so limits the freedoms granted
354
 
by the license. We can see that this is regulatory because absent
355
 
copyright and any regime specifically limiting DRM, such distribution
356
 
would be perfectly legal. Note the GPL does not prohibit distribution
357
 
with DRM, although its source requirement makes DRM superfluous, and
358
 
somewhat analogously, of course GPLv3 carefully regulates distribution
359
 
of GPL'd software with locked-down devices -- to put it simply, it
360
 
requires keys rather than prohibiting locks. Occasionally a freedom
361
 
advocate will question whether CC-BY-SA's DRM prohibition makes
362
 
CC-BY-SA a non-free license. Few if any questioners come down on the
363
 
side of CC-BY-SA being non-free, perhaps for two reasons: first,
364
 
overwhelming dislike of DRM, thus granting the possibility that
365
 
CC-BY-SA's approach could be appropriate for a license largely
366
 
used for cultural works; second, the DRM prohibition in CC-BY-SA
367
 
(and all CC licenses) seems to be mainly expressive -- there are
368
 
no known enforcements, despite the ubiquity of DRM in games, apps,
369
 
and media which utilize assets under various CC licenses.
370
 

	
371
 
Another obvious difference between the GPL and CC-BY-SA is that the
372
 
former is primarily intended to be used for software, and the latter
373
 
for cultural works (and, with version 4.0, databases). Although those
374
 
are the overwhelming majority of uses of each license, there are areas
375
 
in which both are used, e.g., for hardware design and interactive
376
 
cultural works, where there is not a dominant copyleft practice or
377
 
the line between software and non-software is not absolutely clear.
378
 

	
379
 
This brings us to the third obvious difference, and provides a reason
380
 
to mitigate it: the GPL and CC-BY-SA are not compatible, and have
381
 
slightly different compatibility mechanisms. One cannot mix GPL and
382
 
CC-BY-SA works in a way that creates a derivative work and comply
383
 
with either of them. This could change -- CC-BY-SA-4.0 introduced\footnote{
384
 
\url{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/ShareAlike_compatibility}}
385
 
the possibility of Creative Commons declaring CC-BY-SA-4.0 one-way
386
 
(as a donor) compatible with another copyleft license -- the GPL is
387
 
obvious candidate for such compatibility. Discussion is expected to
388
 
begin in late 2014, with a decision sometime in 2015. If this one-way
389
 
compatibility were to be enacted, one could create an adaptation of
390
 
a CC-BY-SA work and release the adaptation under the GPL, but not
391
 
vice-versa -- which makes sense given that the GPL is the stronger
392
 
copyleft.
393
 

	
394
 
The GPL has no externally declared compatibility with other licenses
395
 
mechanism (and note no action from the FSF would be required for
396
 
CC-BY-SA-4.0 to be made one-way compatible with the GPL). The GPL's
397
 
compatibility mechanism for later versions of itself differs from
398
 
CC-BY-SA's in two ways: the GPL's is optional, and allows for use
399
 
of the licensed work and adaptations under later versions; CC-BY-SA's
400
 
is non-optional, but only allows for adaptations under later versions.
401
 

	
402
 
Fourth, using slightly different language, the GPL and CC-BY-SA's
403
 
coverage of copyright and similar restrictions should be identical for
404
 
all intents and purposes (GPL explicitly notes ``semiconductor mask
405
 
rights'' and CC-BY-SA-4.0 ``database rights'' but neither excludes
406
 
any copyright-like restrictions).  But on patents, the licenses are
407
 
rather different. CC-BY-SA-4.0 explicitly does not grant any patent
408
 
license, while previous versions were silent. GPLv3 has an explicit
409
 
patent license, while GPLv2's patent license is implied (see \ref{gpl-implied-patent-grant}
410
 
and \ref{GPLv3-drm} for details). This difference ought give serious pause
411
 
to anyone considering use of CC-BY-SA for works potentially subject
412
 
to patents, especially any potential licensee if CC-BY-SA licensor
413
 
holds such patents. Fortunately Creative Commons has always strongly
414
 
advised against using any of its licenses for software, and that
415
 
advice is usually heeded; but in the space of hardware designs Creative
416
 
Commons has been silent, and unfortunately from a copyleft (i.e., use
417
 
mechanisms at disposal to enforce user freedom) perspective, CC-BY-SA
418
 
is commonly used (all the more reason to enable one-way compatibility,
419
 
allowing such projects to migrate to the stronger copyleft).
420
 

	
421
 
The final obvious difference pertinent to copyleft policy between
422
 
the GPL and CC-BY-SA is purpose. The GPL's preamble makes it clear
423
 
its goal is to guarantee software freedom for all users, and even
424
 
without the preamble, it is clear that this is the Free Software
425
 
Foundation's driving goal. CC-BY-SA (and other CC licenses) state
426
 
no purpose, and (depending on version) are preceded with a disclaimer
427
 
and neutral ``considerations for'' licensors and licensees to
428
 
think about (the CC0 public domain dedication is somewhat of an
429
 
exception; it does have a statement of purpose, but even that has
430
 
more of a feel of expressing yes-I-really-mean-to-do-this than a
431
 
social mission). Creative Commons has always included elements
432
 
of merely offering copyright holders additional choices and of
433
 
purposefully creating a commons. While CC-BY-SA (and initially
434
 
CC-SA) were just among the 11 non-mutually exclusive combinations
435
 
of ``BY'', ``NC'', ``ND'', and ``SA'', freedom advocates
436
 
quickly adopted CC-BY-SA as ``the'' copyleft for non-software works
437
 
(surpassing previously existing non-software copylefts mentioned
438
 
above). Creative Commons has at times recognized the special role of
439
 
CC-BY-SA among its licenses, e.g., in a \href{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_Attribution-ShareAlike_Intent}{statement of intent}
440
 
regarding the license made in order to assure Wikimedians considering
441
 
changing their default license from the FDL to CC-BY-SA that the
442
 
latter, including its steward, was acceptably aligned with the
443
 
Wikimedia movement (itself probably more directly aligned with software
444
 
freedom than any other major non-software commons).
445
 

	
446
 
% FIXME possibly explain why purpose might be relevant, eg copyleft
447
 
% instrument as totemic expression, norm-setting, idea-spreading
448
 

	
449
 
% FIXME possibly mention that CC-BY-SA license text is free (CC0)
450
 

	
451
 
There are numerous other differences between the GPL and CC-BY-SA that
452
 
are not particularly interesting for copyleft policy, such as the
453
 
exact form of attribution and notice, and how license translations
454
 
are handled. Many of these have changed over the course of CC-BY-SA
455
 
versioning.
456
 

	
457
 
\section{CC-BY-SA versions}
458
 

	
459
 
%FIXME section ought explain jurisdiction ports
460
 

	
461
 
This section gives a brief overview of changes across the main versions
462
 
(1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 4.0) of CC-BY-SA, again focused on changes
463
 
pertinent to copyleft policy. Creative Commons maintains a \href{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions}{page}
464
 
detailing all significant changes across versions of all of its CC-BY* licenses,
465
 
in many cases linking to detailed discussion of individual changes.
466
 

	
467
 
As of late 2014, versions 2.0 (the one called ``Generic''; there are
468
 
also 18 jurisdiction ports) and 3.0 (called ``Unported''; there are
469
 
also 39 ports) are by far the most widely used. 2.0 solely because it
470
 
is the only version that the proprietary web image publishing service
471
 
Flickr has ever supported. It hosts 27 million CC-BY-SA-2.0 photos
472
 
\footnote{As of November 2014. See \url{https://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/} for counts.} and remains the go-to general
473
 
source for free images (though it may eventually be supplanted by
474
 
Wikimedia Commons, some new proprietary service, or a federation of
475
 
free image sharing sites, perhaps powered by GNU MediaGlobin). 3.0
476
 
both because it was the current version far longer (2007-2013) than
477
 
any other and because it has been adopted as the default license for
478
 
most Wikimedia projects.
479
 

	
480
 
However apart from the brief notes on each version, we will focus on
481
 
4.0 for a section-by-section walkthrough in the next section, as 4.0
482
 
is improved in several ways, including understandability, and should
483
 
eventually become the most widespread version, both because 4.0 is
484
 
intended to remain the current version for the indefinite and long
485
 
future, and it would be reasonable to predict that Wikimedia projects
486
 
will make CC-BY-SA-4.0 their default license in 2015 or 2016.
487
 

	
488
 
% FIXME subsections might not be the right strcuture or formatting here
489
 

	
490
 
\subsection{1.0 (2002-12-16)}
491
 
CC-BY-SA-1.0 set the expectation for future
492
 
versions. But the most notable copyleft policy feature (apart from
493
 
the high level differences with GPLv2, such as not requiring source)
494
 
was no measure for compatibility with future versions (nor with the
495
 
CC-SA-1.0, also a copyleft license, nor with pre-existing copyleft
496
 
licenses such as GPL, FDL, FAL, and others, nor with CC jurisdiction
497
 
ports, of which there were 3 for 1.0).
498
 

	
499
 
\subsection{2.0 (2004-05-25)}
500
 
CC-BY-SA-2.0 made itself compatible with
501
 
future versions and CC jurisdiction ports of the same version. Creative
502
 
Commons did not version CC-SA, leaving CC-BY-SA-2.0 as ``the'' CC
503
 
copyleft license. CC-BY-SA-2.0 also adds the only clarification of
504
 
what constitutes a derivative work, making ``synchronization of the
505
 
Work in timed-relation with a moving image'' subject to copyleft.
506
 

	
507
 
\subsection{2.5 (2005-06-09)}
508
 
CC-BY-SA-2.5 makes only one change, to allow
509
 
licensor to designate another party to receive attribution. This
510
 
does not seem interesting for copyleft policy, but the context of the
511
 
change is: it was promoted by the desire to make attribution of mass
512
 
collaborations easy (and on the other end of the spectrum, to make it
513
 
possible to clearly require giving attribution to a publisher, e.g.,
514
 
of a journal). There was a brief experiment in branding CC-BY-SA-2.5
515
 
as the ``CC-wiki'' license. This was an early step toward Wikimedia
516
 
adopting CC-BY-SA-3.0, four years later.
517
 

	
518
 
\subsection{3.0 (2007-02-23)}
519
 
CC-BY-SA-3.0 introduced a mechanism for
520
 
externally declaring bilateral compatibility with other licenses. This
521
 
mechanism to date has not been used for CC-BY-SA-3.0, in part because
522
 
another way was found for Wikimedia projects to change their default
523
 
license from FDL to CC-BY-SA: the Free Software Foundation released
524
 
FDL 1.3, which gave a time-bound permission for mass collaboration
525
 
sites to migrate to CC-BY-SA. While not particularly pertinent to
526
 
copyleft policy, it's worth noting for anyone wishing to study
527
 
old versions in depth that 3.0 is the first version to substantially
528
 
alter the text of most of the license, motivated largely by making
529
 
the text use less U.S.-centric legal language. The 3.0 text is also
530
 
considerably longer than previous versions.
531
 

	
532
 
\subsection{4.0 (2013-11-25)}
533
 
CC-BY-SA-4.0 added to 3.0's
534
 
external compatibility declaration mechanism by allowing one-way
535
 
compatibility. After release of CC-BY-SA-4.0 bilateral compatibility
536
 
was reached with FAL-1.3. As previously mentioned, one-way
537
 
compatibility with GPLv3 will soon be discussed.
538
 

	
539
 
4.0 also made a subtle change in that an adaptation may be considered
540
 
to be licensed solely under the adapter's license (currently
541
 
CC-BY-SA-4.0 or FAL-1.3, in the future potentially GPLv3 or or
542
 
a hypothetical CC-BY-SA-5.0). In previous versions licenses were
543
 
deemed to ``stack'' -- if a work under CC-BY-SA-2.0 were adapted
544
 
and released under CC-BY-SA-3.0, users of the adaptation would
545
 
need to comply with both licenses. In practice this is an academic
546
 
distinction, as compliance with any compatible license would tend to
547
 
mean compliance with the original license. But for a licensee using
548
 
a large number of works that wished to be extremely rigorous, this
549
 
would be a large burden, for it would mean understanding every license
550
 
(including those of jurisdiction ports not in English) in detail.
551
 

	
552
 
The new version is also an even more complete rewrite of 3.0 than 3.0
553
 
was of previous versions, completing the ``internationalization''
554
 
of the license, and actually decreasing in length and increasing
555
 
in readability.
556
 

	
557
 
Additionally, 4.0 consistently treats database (licensing them
558
 
like other copyright-like rights) and moral rights (waiving them to
559
 
the extent necessary to exercise granted freedoms) -- in previous
560
 
versions some jurisdiction ports treated these differently -- and
561
 
tentatively eliminates the need for jurisdiction ports. Official
562
 
linguistic translations are underway (Finnish is the first completed)
563
 
and no legal ports are planned for.
564
 

	
565
 
4.0 is the first version to explicitly exclude a patent (and less
566
 
problematically, trademark) license. It also adds two features akin to
567
 
those found in GPLv3: waiver of any right licensor may have to enforce
568
 
anti-circumvention if DRM is applied to the work, and reinstatement
569
 
of rights after termination if non-compliance corrected within 30 days.
570
 

	
571
 
Finally, 4.0 streamlines the attribution requirement, possibly of some
572
 
advantage to massive long-term collaborations which historically have
573
 
found copyleft licenses a good fit.
574
 

	
575
 
The 4.0 versioning process was much more extensively researched,
576
 
public, and documented than previous CC-BY-SA versionings;
577
 
see \url{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0} for the record and
578
 
\url{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4} for a summary of
579
 
final decisions.
580
 

	
581
 

	
582
 
\section{CC-BY-SA-4.0 International section-by-section}
583
 

	
584
 
% FIXME arguably this section ought be the substance of the tutorial, but is very thin and weak now
585
 

	
586
 
% FIXME formatted/section-referenced copy of license should be added to license-texts.tex
587
 
% and referenced throughout
588
 

	
589
 
The best course of action at this juncture would be to read
590
 
\url{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode} -- the entire
591
 
text is fairly easy to read, and should be quickly understood if one
592
 
has the benefit of study of other public licenses and of copyleft
593
 
policy.
594
 

	
595
 
The following walk-through will simply call out portions of each
596
 
section one may wish to study especially closely due to their
597
 
pertinence to copyleft policy issues mentioned above.
598
 

	
599
 
% FIXME subsections might not be the right structure or formatting here
600
 

	
601
 
\subsection{1 -- Definitions}
602
 

	
603
 
The first three definitions -- ``Adapted Material'', ``Adapter's
604
 
License'', and ``BY-SA Compatible License'' are crucial to
605
 
understanding copyleft scope and compatibility.
606
 

	
607
 
\subsection{2 -- Scope}
608
 

	
609
 
The license grant is what makes all four freedoms available to
610
 
licensees. This section is also where waiver of DRM anti-circumvention
611
 
is to be found, also patent and trademark exclusions.
612
 

	
613
 
\subsection{3 -- License Conditions}
614
 

	
615
 
This section contains the details
616
 
of the attribution and share-alike requirements; the latter read
617
 
closely with aforementioned definitions describe the copyleft aspect
618
 
of CC-BY-SA-4.0.
619
 

	
620
 
\subsection{4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights}
621
 

	
622
 
This section describes how the previous grant and condition sections
623
 
apply in the case of a database subject to sui generis database
624
 
rights. This is an opportunity to go down a rabbit-hole of trying to
625
 
understand sui generis database rights. Generally, this is a pointless
626
 
exercise. You can comply with the license in the same way you would if
627
 
the work were subject only to copyright -- and determining whether a
628
 
database is subject to copyright and/or sui generis database rights is
629
 
another pit of futility. You can license databases under CC-BY-SA-4.0
630
 
and use databases subject to the same license as if they were any other
631
 
sort of work.
632
 

	
633
 
\subsection{5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability}
634
 

	
635
 
Unsurprisingly, this section does its best to serve as an ``absolute
636
 
disclaimer and waiver of all liability.''
637
 

	
638
 
\subsection{6 -- Term and Termination}
639
 

	
640
 
This section is similar to GPLv3, but without special provision for
641
 
cases in which the licensor wishes to terminate even cured violations.
642
 

	
643
 
\subsection{7 -- Other Terms and Conditions}
644
 

	
645
 
Though it uses different language, like the GPL, CC-BY-SA-4.0 does
646
 
not allow additional restrictions not contained in the license. Unlike
647
 
the GPL, CC-BY-SA-4.0 does not have an explicit additional permissions
648
 
framework, although effectively a licensor can offer any other terms
649
 
if they are the sole copyright holder (the license is non-exclusive),
650
 
including the sorts of permissions that would be structured as
651
 
additional permissions with the GPL. Creative Commons has sometimes
652
 
called offering of separate terms (whether additional permissions or
653
 
``proprietary relicensing'') the confusing name ``CC+''; however
654
 
where this is encountered at all it is usually in conjunction with one
655
 
of the non-free CC licenses. Perhaps CC-BY-SA is not a strong enough
656
 
copyleft to sometimes require additional permissions, or be used to
657
 
gain commercially valuable asymmetric rights, in contrast with the GPL.
658
 

	
659
 
\subsection{8 -- Interpretation}
660
 

	
661
 
Nothing surprising here. Note that CC-BY-SA does not ``reduce, limit,
662
 
restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that
663
 
could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License.''
664
 
This is a point that Creative Commons has always been eager to make
665
 
about all of its licenses. GPLv3 also ``acknowledges your rights
666
 
of fair use or other equivalent''. This may be a wise strategy,
667
 
but should not be viewed as mandatory for any copyleft license --
668
 
indeed, the ODbL attempts (somewhat self-contradictorily; it also
669
 
acknowledges fair use or other rights to use) make its conditions
670
 
apply even for works potentially subject to neither copyright nor
671
 
sui generis database rights.
672
 

	
673
 

	
674
 
\section{Enforcement}
675
 

	
676
 
There are only a small number of court cases involving any Creative
677
 
Commons license. Creative Commons lists these and some related cases
678
 
at \url{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Law}.
679
 

	
680
 
Only two of those cases concern enforcing the terms of a CC-BY-SA
681
 
license (Gerlach v. DVU in Germany, and No. 71036 N. v. Newspaper
682
 
in a private Rabbinical tribunal) each hinged on attribution,
683
 
not share-alike.
684
 

	
685
 
Further research could uncover out of compliance uses being
686
 
brought into compliance without lawsuit, however no such
687
 
research, nor any hub for conducting such compliance work,
688
 
is known. Editors of Wikimedia Commons document some external
689
 
uses of Commons-hosted media, including whether user are compliant
690
 
with the relevant license for the media (often CC-BY-SA), resulting in a 
691
 
\href{https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files_reused_by_external_parties_out_of_compliance_with_licensing_terms}{category} listing non-compliant uses (which seem to almost exclusively concern attribution).
692
 

	
693
 
\section{Compliance Resources}
694
 

	
695
 
% FIXME this section is just a stub; ideally there would also be an addition section
696
 
% or chapter on CC-BY-SA compliance
697
 

	
698
 
Creative Commons has a page on
699
 
\href{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/ShareAlike_interpretation}{ShareAlike
700
 
interpretation} as well as an extensive Frequently Asked Questions
701
 
\href{https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#For_Licensees}{for
702
 
licensees} which addresses compliance with the attribution condition.
703
 

	
704
 
\href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content}{English
705
 
Wikipedia}'s and
706
 
\href{https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia}{Wikimedia
707
 
Commons}' pages on using material outside of Wikimedia projects provide
708
 
valuable information, as the majority of material on those sites is
709
 
CC-BY-SA licensed, and their practices are high-profile.
710
 

	
711
 
% FIXME there is no section on business use of CC-BY-SA; there probably ought to be 
712
 
% as there is one for GPL, though there'd be much less to put.
713
 

	
714
 
% =====================================================================
715
 
% END OF ATTRIBUTION-SHAREALIKE SECTION
716
 
% =====================================================================
717
 

	
718
 
%%  LocalWords:  ShareAlike
comprehensive-gpl-guide.tex | next cc-by-sa
...
 
@@ -190,6 +190,8 @@ material is \textbf{not equivalent} to attending a course.
190 190
 

	
191 191
 
\input{enforcement-case-studies}
192 192
 

	
193
 
\input{cc-by-sa}
194
 

	
193 195
 
\appendix
194 196
 

	
195 197
 
\part{Appendices}
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
This -- ought to be ---
engel nyst (enyst)
1 year and 2 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
This paragraph is candidate for an update, as the events it talks about already happened.
engel nyst (enyst)
1 year and 2 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
% FIXME transition from licenses that "stack" to relicensing the original work. Other consequences, more or less visible: (1) the change seems to imply that one can't achieve compatibility between copylefts other than by relicensing, when it seems the very existence of the former "stacking" mechanism shows otherwise; (2) some feel that the change affects/prevents the practice of licensing under CC-BY (or other non-copyleft for which there's compatibility in the other direction) an adaptation of a CC-BY-SA work, which was a useful practice, if one rather under the radar of mainstream licensing bodies; (3) [checkme] the change seems to mean that if an author feels strongly about their work remaining licensed as they carefully chose, they're better off choosing CC-BY, which is explicit about more aspects of it.
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
s/of widespread/the spread of/
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
"It's hard not to observe that it seems" can be removed. Then, ", but non-software" becomes ". By contrast, non-software" Just one suggestion; my underlying complaint is that the stack of modifiers beginning this paragraph is really tall and must be mentally suspended until getting to that "but".
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
"Definitions of 'Free'"
engel nyst (enyst)
1 year and 2 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
ought to give
engel nyst (enyst)
1 year and 3 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
Unfinished phrase "while these...". I'd remove "while", or combine it with the next phrase.
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
...emphasize access over permissions, with freedoms analagous to the four...
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
Ak. *analogous*
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 4 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
s/other definitions of/related categories of non-software works, e.g./
Mike Linksvayer (mlinksva)
2 years and 7 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"

Status change: Under review

Auto status change to Under Review
12 comments (11 inline, 1 general)