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)
2 years and 6 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
This -- ought to be ---
engel nyst (enyst)
1 year and 4 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 4 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 6 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
s/of widespread/the spread of/
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 6 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 6 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
"Definitions of 'Free'"
engel nyst (enyst)
1 year and 4 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
ought to give
engel nyst (enyst)
1 year and 5 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 6 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 6 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
Ak. *analogous*
Stephen Compall (S11001001)
2 years and 6 months ago on pull request "starter material on cc-by-sa"
s/other definitions of/related categories of non-software works, e.g./
Auto status change to Under Review