drew Roberts wrote:
> On Monday 12 February 2007 11:45 am, Terry Hancock
wrote:
>>ISTM you're missing a subtley in this particular
thread. The idea is
>>that there is a third state, between "mere
aggregation" and
>>"derivation", which involves
"semantically linked" works.
>
> Right.
>
> Question: For each of these cases, let us know if you
consider it a case of
> mere aggregation or not.
>
> 1. Popular Hits CD. This is just a random collection of
hit songs. Original
> artists and recordings.
> 2. Popular Hits of the 90s CD. This is a collection of
random hits of the 90s.
> Original artists and recordings.
> 3. Popular Love Songs CD. This is a CD of hits
specifically chosen and
> ordered. Original artists and recordings.
> 4. Same as 1 but covered by one new artist.
> 5. Same as 2 but covered by one new artist.
> 6. Same as 3 but covered by one new artist.
>
> In all cases, one variety has all songs under s free
license but not
> compatible ones. Another variety mixes songs with free
and non-free licenses.
Every one of these is "mere aggregation".
You don't get into combined works until you produce
something like a
medley or a remix of the original work.
The individual "covers" you mention are probably
"derivatives" of the
songs they cover (I'm not sure about this, though, because
US copyright
law apparently covers "phonorecords" under a
slightly different statute
than the songs they are based on -- or at least they used
to).
However, though they may be bound by the copyleft of the
songs they are
based on, the copyleft of other songs on the same CD has no
impact on them.
Of course, this is once again one of those areas where a
court might see
things differently.
>>IOW, you can imagine a variant of the LGPL which
allows linking of
>>libraries to *ANY* free software license (say,
"Any OSI Approved
>>License"), but NOT to proprietary licenses.
This would be more
>>restrictive than the existing LGPL, but still not as
restrictive as the
>>GPL.
> So, the benefit would be to allow linking of non-gpl
compatible free code with
> gpl compatible code. ???
Precisely. The biggest examples would be Mozilla PL, IBM PL,
etc. (IIRC
-- some license have explicit GPL conversion provisions).
However, it's fairly niche. Most people willing to do this
would be
willing to just use the LGPL.
The important point is to illustrate the concept of a
license that
creates this 3rd category of "linked" works.
>>I think automatic upgrade clauses are the real
kicker. If a license
>>containing such a clause is declared
"compatible", then the way is
>>opened for a bad license steward to essentially leak
the whole commons
>>out of copyleft entirely. Which would be *BAD*.
>
> This could indeed be bad. Could this be side stepped by
having the automatic
> upgrade be conditional on converted works some how? A
converted work can be
> upgraded but only after approval of the new version?
This might get hairy
> really fast.
ISTM that it might be smarter to *eliminate* "automatic
upgrade" terms
in all of these sorts of licenses. Then re-introduce the
upgrade
licenses via the same compatibility license. That would (I
think) permit
a review process to apply before determining if upgrades are
possible.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|
