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
There are no reviewers
2014-11-19 21:41:10
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:
1
1
718
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
 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)
3 years and 3 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"

This -- ought to be ---

engel nyst (enyst)
2 years and 1 month 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)
2 years and 1 month 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)
3 years and 3 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"

Stephen Compall (S11001001)
3 years and 3 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)
3 years and 3 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"

"Definitions of 'Free'"

engel nyst (enyst)
2 years and 1 month ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"

ought to give

engel nyst (enyst)
2 years and 1 month 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)
3 years and 3 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"

...emphasize access over permissions, with freedoms analagous to the four...

Stephen Compall (S11001001)
3 years and 3 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"

Ak. analogous

Stephen Compall (S11001001)
3 years and 3 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"

s/other definitions of/related categories of non-software works, e.g./

12 comments (11 inline, 1 general)