Re: Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too

Mia Garlick wrote:
> a license will not be deemed compatible unless it is
reciprocal in  
> recognizing and enabling compatibility.  i don't think
one can  
> include a "Note" in a legal definition. 
would this rephrasing allay  
> concern?
> 
> ""Creative Commons Compatible License"
means a license that is listed  
> at http://
creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses thathas been  
> approved by Creative Commons as being essentially
equivalent to this  
> License, including without limitation because that
license: (i)   
> contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning and
effect as the  
> License Elements of this License; and, (ii) explicitly
permits the  
> relicensing of derivatives of works made available
under that license  
> under this License."

IMHO, your first draft was better. It straightforwardly
requires:

1) CC approval of the license by publishing it in a
particular place

2) Reciprocal publishing of a conversion clause by the
compatible
license's steward

This is important because it makes reciprocity a requirement
of both
stewards in order for the decision to be binding.

Consider, e.g. the following timeline:

Date           Action                             
Convertable?
Jan 15, 2008 - CC publishes XAL as "compatible"   
  No
               with XAF's X Arts License (XAL)*

Feb 15, 2008 - XAF debates CC compatibility          No

Jun 15, 2008 - Radical XAF group rejects CC          No

Oct 15, 2008 - New XAF leadership reopens CC         No
               Debate

Dec 20, 2008 - XAF declares CC/XAL compatible        Yes

Feb 21, 2009   XAF changes mind, removes CC          No?
               from compatibility list

Mar 23, 2009   XAF changes mind again, adds CC       Yes?
               back to compatibility list

Mar 25, 2009   XAF creates new CC-incompatible       Y/N by
version?
               XAL version

etc., etc.  Note that this whole time, CC has listed XAL as
"compatible", but XAL flakes or flip-flops on the
issue, determining
when the license is compatible. Only the reciprocity clause
protects us
from XAL reneging on its agreement with CC.

I think that's a good protection to have.

One thing I am concerned about is the revocation
possibility. How does
that work out exactly?  If compatibility is revoked (by
either
organization), what happens to previously converted
works.**

Does the date of combination of works matter?

Also how does compatibility interact with the automatic
upgrade clauses?

Consider:
XAL 1.0 terms are compatible with By-SA 3.0
By-SA 3.0 includes auto-upgrade clause
XAL 1.0 includes auto-upgrade clause
XAL 1.2 adds "we love DRM" clause, breaking By-SA
compatibility

Derivers break By-SA terms by trivial conversions:

By-SA 3.0 --> XAL 1.0 --> XAL 1.2

(Now I can distribute DRM-locked By-SA content in violation
of the
original license)

(Yes they have to "derive" at each stage, but that
could be done with
very small changes)

As an opportunity -- this kind of system could *replace*
automatic
upgrade clauses, through using such a published conversion
table. This
could help with some cases, allowing particular versions to
be
converted, but not allowing conversion beyond that version
(the problem
being compatibility with existing licenses' upgrade
clauses).

Once more than one organization controls the upgrade path,
the
opportunity for loopholes in copyleft becomes large.

Cheers,
Terry


*For anyone wondering, "XAL" is a fictious license
or the organization
promoting it, and I don't mean to imply anything about the
reliability
of any existing organization.

**By "converted work", of course, I mean a work
derived from mixed
license sources and released under one or the other of the
"compatible"
licenses.

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

comments below...

On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Terry Hancock wrote:

> Mia Garlick wrote:
>> a license will not be deemed compatible unless it
is reciprocal in
>> recognizing and enabling compatibility.  i don't
think one can
>> include a "Note" in a legal definition. 
would this rephrasing allay
>> concern?
>>
>> ""Creative Commons Compatible
License" means a license that is listed
>> at http://
creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses thathas been
>> approved by Creative Commons as being essentially
equivalent to this
>> License, including without limitation because that
license: (i)
>> contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning
and effect as the
>> License Elements of this License; and, (ii)
explicitly permits the
>> relicensing of derivatives of works made available
under that license
>> under this License."
>
> IMHO, your first draft was better. It straightforwardly
requires:
>
> 1) CC approval of the license by publishing it in a
particular place
>
> 2) Reciprocal publishing of a conversion clause by the
compatible
> license's steward
>
> This is important because it makes reciprocity a
requirement of both
> stewards in order for the decision to be binding.

i think the amended wording actually makes it clear that CC
can only  
approve a license that allows reciprocality. consequently,
that  
timeline isn't wholly accurate — CC would not take the first
step of  
declaring compatibility with a license that didn't already
have  
compatibility in it.

>
> Consider, e.g. the following timeline:
>
> Date           Action                             
Convertable?
> Jan 15, 2008 - CC publishes XAL as
"compatible"      No
>                with XAF's X Arts License (XAL)*
>
> Feb 15, 2008 - XAF debates CC compatibility         
No
>
> Jun 15, 2008 - Radical XAF group rejects CC         
No
>
> Oct 15, 2008 - New XAF leadership reopens CC        
No
>                Debate
>
> Dec 20, 2008 - XAF declares CC/XAL compatible       
Yes
>
> Feb 21, 2009   XAF changes mind, removes CC         
No?
>                from compatibility list
>
> Mar 23, 2009   XAF changes mind again, adds CC      
Yes?
>                back to compatibility list
>
> Mar 25, 2009   XAF creates new CC-incompatible      
Y/N by version?
>                XAL version
>
> etc., etc.  Note that this whole time, CC has listed
XAL as
> "compatible", but XAL flakes or flip-flops on
the issue, determining
> when the license is compatible. Only the reciprocity
clause  
> protects us
> from XAL reneging on its agreement with CC.
>
> I think that's a good protection to have.
>
> One thing I am concerned about is the revocation
possibility. How does
> that work out exactly?  If compatibility is revoked (by
either
> organization), what happens to previously converted
works.**
>
> Does the date of combination of works matter?
>
> Also how does compatibility interact with the automatic
upgrade  
> clauses?

this is a good question.  i think this and the revocation
clause  
question has to be answered on a case by case basis.
compatibility  
can be approved only for a particular license version or it
can be  
approved for the current and any subsequent license
versions.  if the  
latter is adopted, then there has to be an agreement between
the  
license stewards that they will maintain the license terms
to be  
essentially equivalent.  otherwise i guess one would have to
stop  
compatibility at that license version that contained similar
terms  
and not allow compatibility with later versions...

>
> Consider:
> XAL 1.0 terms are compatible with By-SA 3.0
> By-SA 3.0 includes auto-upgrade clause
> XAL 1.0 includes auto-upgrade clause
> XAL 1.2 adds "we love DRM" clause, breaking
By-SA compatibility
>
> Derivers break By-SA terms by trivial conversions:
>
> By-SA 3.0 --> XAL 1.0 --> XAL 1.2
>
> (Now I can distribute DRM-locked By-SA content in
violation of the
> original license)
>
> (Yes they have to "derive" at each stage, but
that could be done with
> very small changes)
>
> As an opportunity -- this kind of system could
*replace* automatic
> upgrade clauses, through using such a published
conversion table. This
> could help with some cases, allowing particular
versions to be
> converted, but not allowing conversion beyond that
version (the  
> problem
> being compatibility with existing licenses' upgrade
clauses).
>
> Once more than one organization controls the upgrade
path, the
> opportunity for loopholes in copyleft becomes large.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
>
> *For anyone wondering, "XAL" is a fictious
license or the organization
> promoting it, and I don't mean to imply anything about
the reliability
> of any existing organization.
>
> **By "converted work", of course, I mean a
work derived from mixed
> license sources and released under one or the other of
the  
> "compatible"
> licenses.
>
> -- 
> Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses