6 ms·

What's new in Creative Commons 4.0

90 points by cstuder 13y ago

MarcusVorenus 13y ago
Looks like GPL compatibility was not included after all?
- passepartout 13y ago
  The compatibility would not be part of the license in any case. Some licenses could be considered compatible with GPL (specifically the CC BY SA). However, CC generally suggests that the licenses are used for non-software creations.
  - Shamanmuni 13y ago
    I think the problem is that both GPL and CC-BY-SA require you to license derivative works with that same license. And sometimes it's not easy to tell if something is or isn't software in a clear way. For example, if you modify an image of a map licensed with CC-BY-SA for it to be used in a level of a game licensed with GPL, which license should you use for the derivative work? Is it data, code or both at the same time? What's the status of an image or a sound made with a script (think about fractals, for example)? Both licenses are "viral" and require you to use that and not the other. You are on a deadlock.
    - passepartout 13y ago
      This is the general problem with share alike clauses and GPL is known for adopting a very limited interpretation of their Share Alike clause. They have recognized CC0 as being compatible with GPL, which is a step. In your example, I'd say that most definitely software cannot be under CC. My perception is that the software license always prevails. Now the image in the game could be implemented with an authorization from the author (it's the best way to avoid problems in any case).
      - Shamanmuni 13y ago
        I'm in complete agreement with you, but I think we wouldn't need to rely on personal interpretations and recommended practices if the SA licenses stated clearly something akin to: If a copy or a derivative work of the licensed material is to be included in a piece of software under the General Public License or other strong copyleft license, then it must be licensed under that license for compliance. I don't speak legalese, so I'm sure that text is full of holes and possible misinterpretations, but surely a group of experts could come up with something legally viable in that spirit.
    - mlinksva 13y ago
      CC-BY-SA-4.0 allows for one-way compatibility, compatible licenses list maintained outside license (currently none, but hopefully GPLv3+ in the near future; bilateral compatibility with the Free Art License is a possibility also). 3.0 only allowed for bilateral compatibility (currently none, and none expected).
drakaal 13y ago
Basically unusable. If you had put in the terms of your OpenSource Image Hosting platform that users couldn't use the software to host violent or simulated violent content, that restriction is removed by CC 4.0. Conversely you can now require that anyone who uses your Image Hosting Platform gives you the rights to any data about users of that platform. This will probably only hold in Europe since in the US data is pretty hard to copyright. It also now allows that if you are a Model in an image that is shared as Creative commons that if someone wants to make modification to that image to make it look like you are being Raped, or raping someone else that is permissible, and you can only say all derivative works are allowed, or none are allowed. This is a major step backwards.
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  No accepted open source licenses (GPL, BSD, MIT, etc) permit restrictions on use based on content. If they did, they would not be OSI approved. CC licensing that is open is based on the same open model. It would be nearly impossible to structure a license with every possible scenario the content owner could object to. And allowing the content owner to manually insert their own restriction language is fraught with issues: is it written in a way to be legally enforceable, what if the owner misses something like prohibits sexual/violent act and is later upset when it is used another, are they open to interpretation in a different culture/group that uses a different definition of violence or a sexual act, etc. While wanting to ensure your images are not used for purposes you object to is a valid concern, if it is a concern for a particular image, that image should not be CC licensed with modifications permitted.
  - drakaal 13y ago
    Actually GPL and MIT do. I don't know on BSD. You can release software on GPL that is free to an industry/market but is pay for other markets or not available in those markets. You can even under GPL release software with a restriction that it can not be used by competitors. So if you want to release something that does Missile Tracking, but someone wants to use it to do head tracking that is ok. CC 4.0 explicitly has language preventing this, where as 3.0 didn't have explicit language so even if it was the intent of the license it wasn't spelled out so you could do such things.
jstalin 13y ago
Looks like they significantly cleaned up the warranty disclaimer and fixed the limitation of damages, which likely would have been a problem in US courts.
- nkurz 13y ago
  Is there case law on disclaimers of warranty for open source software? In particular, has anyone been successfully sued for an providing free software that was not fit for a particular purpose? I was recently hoping that these disclaimers were legal paranoia, but I have no actual knowledge.

90 points by cstuder 13y ago

MarcusVorenus 13y ago

Looks like GPL compatibility was not included after all?

passepartout 13y ago
The compatibility would not be part of the license in any case. Some licenses could be considered compatible with GPL (specifically the CC BY SA). However, CC generally suggests that the licenses are used for non-software creations.
- Shamanmuni 13y ago
  I think the problem is that both GPL and CC-BY-SA require you to license derivative works with that same license. And sometimes it's not easy to tell if something is or isn't software in a clear way. For example, if you modify an image of a map licensed with CC-BY-SA for it to be used in a level of a game licensed with GPL, which license should you use for the derivative work? Is it data, code or both at the same time? What's the status of an image or a sound made with a script (think about fractals, for example)? Both licenses are "viral" and require you to use that and not the other. You are on a deadlock.
  - passepartout 13y ago
    This is the general problem with share alike clauses and GPL is known for adopting a very limited interpretation of their Share Alike clause. They have recognized CC0 as being compatible with GPL, which is a step. In your example, I'd say that most definitely software cannot be under CC. My perception is that the software license always prevails. Now the image in the game could be implemented with an authorization from the author (it's the best way to avoid problems in any case).
    - Shamanmuni 13y ago
      I'm in complete agreement with you, but I think we wouldn't need to rely on personal interpretations and recommended practices if the SA licenses stated clearly something akin to: If a copy or a derivative work of the licensed material is to be included in a piece of software under the General Public License or other strong copyleft license, then it must be licensed under that license for compliance. I don't speak legalese, so I'm sure that text is full of holes and possible misinterpretations, but surely a group of experts could come up with something legally viable in that spirit.
  - mlinksva 13y ago
    CC-BY-SA-4.0 allows for one-way compatibility, compatible licenses list maintained outside license (currently none, but hopefully GPLv3+ in the near future; bilateral compatibility with the Free Art License is a possibility also). 3.0 only allowed for bilateral compatibility (currently none, and none expected).

drakaal 13y ago

Basically unusable. If you had put in the terms of your OpenSource Image Hosting platform that users couldn't use the software to host violent or simulated violent content, that restriction is removed by CC 4.0. Conversely you can now require that anyone who uses your Image Hosting Platform gives you the rights to any data about users of that platform. This will probably only hold in Europe since in the US data is pretty hard to copyright. It also now allows that if you are a Model in an image that is shared as Creative commons that if someone wants to make modification to that image to make it look like you are being Raped, or raping someone else that is permissible, and you can only say all derivative works are allowed, or none are allowed. This is a major step backwards.

JohnTHaller 13y ago
No accepted open source licenses (GPL, BSD, MIT, etc) permit restrictions on use based on content. If they did, they would not be OSI approved. CC licensing that is open is based on the same open model. It would be nearly impossible to structure a license with every possible scenario the content owner could object to. And allowing the content owner to manually insert their own restriction language is fraught with issues: is it written in a way to be legally enforceable, what if the owner misses something like prohibits sexual/violent act and is later upset when it is used another, are they open to interpretation in a different culture/group that uses a different definition of violence or a sexual act, etc. While wanting to ensure your images are not used for purposes you object to is a valid concern, if it is a concern for a particular image, that image should not be CC licensed with modifications permitted.
- drakaal 13y ago
  Actually GPL and MIT do. I don't know on BSD. You can release software on GPL that is free to an industry/market but is pay for other markets or not available in those markets. You can even under GPL release software with a restriction that it can not be used by competitors. So if you want to release something that does Missile Tracking, but someone wants to use it to do head tracking that is ok. CC 4.0 explicitly has language preventing this, where as 3.0 didn't have explicit language so even if it was the intent of the license it wasn't spelled out so you could do such things.

jstalin 13y ago

Looks like they significantly cleaned up the warranty disclaimer and fixed the limitation of damages, which likely would have been a problem in US courts.

nkurz 13y ago
Is there case law on disclaimers of warranty for open source software? In particular, has anyone been successfully sued for an providing free software that was not fit for a particular purpose? I was recently hoping that these disclaimers were legal paranoia, but I have no actual knowledge.