Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

4.0/ShareAlike

2012-01-24T00:03:58Z

Zotz: /* Proposals relating to SA scope in 4.0 */ added other comment under share the wealth section

{{4.0 Issue}}

There are roughly three issues that have been discussed for years that could potentially be addressed. Ideally, addressing one or more of these could increase clarity of relevant CC licenses, and increase range of and differentiation within CC license suite.

==ShareAlike scope==

Effectively, this has been treated as identical to potentially tweaking the definition of adaptations vs collections.
* Version 2.0 added "For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License." (Please discuss this particular clarifying language on the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/license_subject_matter#Automatic_localization_of_the_license License subject matter page].)
* Many have wanted something similar added clarifying when use of an image creates an adaptation/derivative. This was visited especially during discussions with the Wikimedia community, leading to no immediate change, but an assurance that the scope of BY-SA's copyleft would only be increased, if changed at all in the 3rd point of [[CC Attribution-ShareAlike Intent]]

Relatedly, it has also been pointed out that CC license definitions of work/adaptation/collection are somewhat hard to read.

For further discussion, visit the [[4.0/Games_3d_printing_and_functional_content#Increasing.2Fclarifying_scope_of_what.27s_a_derivative|Games, 3D printing, and functional content page]].

=== Proposals relating to SA scope in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''SA Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Make no changes.'''
* Pros:
* Cons: Does not allow the creation to evolve. It is not made clear how to incorporate SA materials into otherwise licensed works.
* Other comments: There is already a 'no derivatives' option. The concept of derivation could be made more clear with examples such as "remix, translate, integrate, aggregate, etc."

'''''SA Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Make work/adaptation/collection definitions easier to read, but strive to not make any effective change.'''
* Pros: Will clarify terminology.
* Cons: New observations based on experience with current CC licenses may bot be taken into account.
* Other comments: Explain that the Share Alike clause discourages exploitave commercial uses while still allowing commerce in the commons and OER landscape.

'''''SA Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand scope of adaptation (thus SA) specifically for some class of use of images, analogous to synching added in 2.0.'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: Also allow certain exceptions such as mixing CC-by-SA with GPL or similarly spirited licenses.

'''''SA Proposal No. 4:''''' '''A more aggressive expansion of SA, including some collections, except those that are mere aggregations (see GPL).'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006644.html Attempt to restate my ideas for a stronger copyleft for BY-SA 4.0+ in alternate language by drew Roberts]
** Same basic idea in "Copyright Arising" language from 2007 [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2007-April/001702.html Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?] The above language may be stronger as it could preclude the use of patents or yet to be created legal powers to restrict freedom.

'''''SA Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Share the wealth clause, requesting that commercial gain (e.g. profits) be shared back to the original creator(s).'''
* Pros: gives financial incentive to release assets under Free Culture Certified licenses. Reduces concern about commercial (ab)uses of creative works.
* Cons:
** May be hard to figure out proportional income distribution. Perhaps a general guideline could ease this process.
** Introduces some of the issues raised by [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial the NC term] - namely, confusion over what is commercial use ('profits' are mentioned in this proposal) and could be a disincentive to share and remix works where otherwise allowed. NC is often adopted out of a (perhaps largely misguided because SA addresses it) concern for commercial exploitation. If 'share the wealth' becomes a new trend ('Yeah, of course I want to choose the option to receive money from others who use my work!') it may heavily reduce the cultural value of any works under that license.
* Other comments:
** Create a table of fair share profit distribution (perhaps percentage based) to guide the reciprocative process.
** Difficult to determine how to share profits. May need a public directory of CC licensors and their payment details. Perhaps link this in with profile pages on the CC site, creating an incentive to register your works here. (However, my understanding is that this costs the user a (albeit minimal) yearly fee, reducing access to this service.)
** My take is that if this is put in it should always be voluntary on the part of the licensee. Let the licensor give suggested details.(For instance I might suggest that someone kick back to me when they are making more per hour from my works than they make per hour at their regular job or when they make more per hour from my works then I make per hour on average.)

''Please add other SA proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

==Source-requiring SA==

(Note that scope and whether source required are independent of each other.)

Some would like a copyleft for creative works that requires not just sharing adaptations under the same license, but making preferred form for modification available, as the GPL does for software. FDL includes a weaker requirement of providing copies in "transparent" formats. Especially the former may be too far for BY-SA to go (but costs/benefits could be listed to see). Could possibly be addressed via compatibility, see next.

==Compatibility with other copyleft licenses==

Directly related to the interoperability goal of 4.0. The following licenses have been discussed at various points, regarding compatibility with BY-SA:
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html Free Documentation License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GPL] (unique among these, could only be one-way with BY-SA as donor; would address desire for source-requiring license, long-term trend toward more mixing of "code" and "content" in ways beyond former accessing latter) MPL2 contains a [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0 mechanism for compatibility with GPL, with limitations], that may be a useful model.
* [http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Open Database LIcense] (ODbL)

Some things to consider in 4.0 process:
* What could be done to bring BY-SA into better alignment technically with these other licenses where they are in the same spirit?
* Should explicit compatibility with any of these be aimed for? In theory this could be a post-4.0 discussion assuming compatible licenses hook remains, but in practice, if compatibility is to be possible, 4.0 changes should be considered in that light
* Discuss with stewards of each of above licenses, with regard to BY-SA 4.0, future versions of their licenses, alignment, and explicit compatibility statements
* Similar to above, discuss with other stewards possibility of agreeing on/promoting common license text

===Considerations regarding compatibility of other licenses===

* Consider addressing uncertainty regarding releasing a work (adaptation/ derivative) under a CC Compatible license
**When I thought about CC-BY-SA 3.0 --> GFDL transition as a hypothetical case, it was not necessarily all clear how I would "follow" GFDL after creating a derivative of a CC-BY-SA'd work.
**To address the uncertainty, consider developing a "exemplary practice guideline" that would serve as a "safe harber" - i.e. the range of practice that is considered to be "in compliance" with both licenses for the transition purposes. Practice outside of the guideline may be okay, or maybe not. Insert some language to make this safe harbor effective in 4.0. After some licenses become compatible, develop such guidelines with steward of the compatible license.

*''GPL Compatibility.'' CC BY does not make any specific requirements on the exact license an adaptation may be released under, but it ought be possible for downstream licensee of adaptation to fulfill CC BY conditions when fulfilling conditions of license adaptation offered under, ie conditions of license adaption under should be a superset of CC BY conditions. CC BY may be slightly misaligned with GPL such that latter's conditions not a strict superset of former. FSF says CC BY is not GPL compatible -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby
**Items to look at for potential incompatibilities and potential rectification:
*** [[4.0/Technical protection measures]]
*** [[4.0/Attribution and marking]]
**GPL compatibility is discussed in detail on this [[4.0/Games_3d_printing_and_functional_content#GPL_compatibility|page]].

''Please add other important considerations to this discussion here.''

=== Proposals relating to compatibility in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''Compatibility Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Clarify definition of Creative Commons Compatible License.''' (Currently, "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License, including, at a minimum, 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 adaptations of works made available under that license under this License or a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License."
* Pros:
* Cons: Current language is ambiguous. Does it mean (a) the compatible license must give options for a licensee to pick any of those CC licenses? Or does it mean that (b) the compatible license must give at least one of those CC licenses as an option?
* Other comments: Better wording (though I am not a native speaker) suggestions, for (a) and (b) above, respectively, are:
***(ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of adaptations of works made available under that license under any of the Creative Commons licenses with the same License Elements as this License, including this License.
***(ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of adaptations of works made available under that license under at least one of the Creative Commons licenses with the same License Elements as this License, such as this License, Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Australia license, or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Japan license.

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

* [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/thread.html#6474 Discussion about compatibility between CC and the Free Art License, started by Antoine Pitrou on 12/23/11]

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''

* [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_Puro_License Libre Puro License] (draft)
** [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License#Preamble_for_the_Libre_Puro_License Preamble]
** [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License_Draft_Creative_Commons_Deed License deed]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say Libre]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_knowledge Libre knowledge]

4.0/ShareAlike

2012-01-23T23:57:54Z

Zotz: /* Proposals relating to SA scope in 4.0 */ Stronger BY-SA copyleft in copyright arising language from 2007

{{4.0 Issue}}

There are roughly three issues that have been discussed for years that could potentially be addressed. Ideally, addressing one or more of these could increase clarity of relevant CC licenses, and increase range of and differentiation within CC license suite.

==ShareAlike scope==

Effectively, this has been treated as identical to potentially tweaking the definition of adaptations vs collections.
* Version 2.0 added "For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License." (Please discuss this particular clarifying language on the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/license_subject_matter#Automatic_localization_of_the_license License subject matter page].)
* Many have wanted something similar added clarifying when use of an image creates an adaptation/derivative. This was visited especially during discussions with the Wikimedia community, leading to no immediate change, but an assurance that the scope of BY-SA's copyleft would only be increased, if changed at all in the 3rd point of [[CC Attribution-ShareAlike Intent]]

Relatedly, it has also been pointed out that CC license definitions of work/adaptation/collection are somewhat hard to read.

For further discussion, visit the [[4.0/Games_3d_printing_and_functional_content#Increasing.2Fclarifying_scope_of_what.27s_a_derivative|Games, 3D printing, and functional content page]].

=== Proposals relating to SA scope in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''SA Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Make no changes.'''
* Pros:
* Cons: Does not allow the creation to evolve. It is not made clear how to incorporate SA materials into otherwise licensed works.
* Other comments: There is already a 'no derivatives' option. The concept of derivation could be made more clear with examples such as "remix, translate, integrate, aggregate, etc."

'''''SA Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Make work/adaptation/collection definitions easier to read, but strive to not make any effective change.'''
* Pros: Will clarify terminology.
* Cons: New observations based on experience with current CC licenses may bot be taken into account.
* Other comments: Explain that the Share Alike clause discourages exploitave commercial uses while still allowing commerce in the commons and OER landscape.

'''''SA Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand scope of adaptation (thus SA) specifically for some class of use of images, analogous to synching added in 2.0.'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: Also allow certain exceptions such as mixing CC-by-SA with GPL or similarly spirited licenses.

'''''SA Proposal No. 4:''''' '''A more aggressive expansion of SA, including some collections, except those that are mere aggregations (see GPL).'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006644.html Attempt to restate my ideas for a stronger copyleft for BY-SA 4.0+ in alternate language by drew Roberts]
** Same basic idea in "Copyright Arising" language from 2007 [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2007-April/001702.html Does BY-SA extend to a newspaper?] The above language may be stronger as it could preclude the use of patents or yet to be created legal powers to restrict freedom.

'''''SA Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Share the wealth clause, requesting that commercial gain (e.g. profits) be shared back to the original creator(s).'''
* Pros: gives financial incentive to release assets under Free Culture Certified licenses. Reduces concern about commercial (ab)uses of creative works.
* Cons:
** May be hard to figure out proportional income distribution. Perhaps a general guideline could ease this process.
** Introduces some of the issues raised by [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial the NC term] - namely, confusion over what is commercial use ('profits' are mentioned in this proposal) and could be a disincentive to share and remix works where otherwise allowed. NC is often adopted out of a (perhaps largely misguided because SA addresses it) concern for commercial exploitation. If 'share the wealth' becomes a new trend ('Yeah, of course I want to choose the option to receive money from others who use my work!') it may heavily reduce the cultural value of any works under that license.
* Other comments:
** Create a table of fair share profit distribution (perhaps percentage based) to guide the reciprocative process.
** Difficult to determine how to share profits. May need a public directory of CC licensors and their payment details. Perhaps link this in with profile pages on the CC site, creating an incentive to register your works here. (However, my understanding is that this costs the user a (albeit minimal) yearly fee, reducing access to this service.)

''Please add other SA proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

==Source-requiring SA==

(Note that scope and whether source required are independent of each other.)

Some would like a copyleft for creative works that requires not just sharing adaptations under the same license, but making preferred form for modification available, as the GPL does for software. FDL includes a weaker requirement of providing copies in "transparent" formats. Especially the former may be too far for BY-SA to go (but costs/benefits could be listed to see). Could possibly be addressed via compatibility, see next.

==Compatibility with other copyleft licenses==

Directly related to the interoperability goal of 4.0. The following licenses have been discussed at various points, regarding compatibility with BY-SA:
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html Free Documentation License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GPL] (unique among these, could only be one-way with BY-SA as donor; would address desire for source-requiring license, long-term trend toward more mixing of "code" and "content" in ways beyond former accessing latter) MPL2 contains a [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0 mechanism for compatibility with GPL, with limitations], that may be a useful model.
* [http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Open Database LIcense] (ODbL)

Some things to consider in 4.0 process:
* What could be done to bring BY-SA into better alignment technically with these other licenses where they are in the same spirit?
* Should explicit compatibility with any of these be aimed for? In theory this could be a post-4.0 discussion assuming compatible licenses hook remains, but in practice, if compatibility is to be possible, 4.0 changes should be considered in that light
* Discuss with stewards of each of above licenses, with regard to BY-SA 4.0, future versions of their licenses, alignment, and explicit compatibility statements
* Similar to above, discuss with other stewards possibility of agreeing on/promoting common license text

===Considerations regarding compatibility of other licenses===

* Consider addressing uncertainty regarding releasing a work (adaptation/ derivative) under a CC Compatible license
**When I thought about CC-BY-SA 3.0 --> GFDL transition as a hypothetical case, it was not necessarily all clear how I would "follow" GFDL after creating a derivative of a CC-BY-SA'd work.
**To address the uncertainty, consider developing a "exemplary practice guideline" that would serve as a "safe harber" - i.e. the range of practice that is considered to be "in compliance" with both licenses for the transition purposes. Practice outside of the guideline may be okay, or maybe not. Insert some language to make this safe harbor effective in 4.0. After some licenses become compatible, develop such guidelines with steward of the compatible license.

*''GPL Compatibility.'' CC BY does not make any specific requirements on the exact license an adaptation may be released under, but it ought be possible for downstream licensee of adaptation to fulfill CC BY conditions when fulfilling conditions of license adaptation offered under, ie conditions of license adaption under should be a superset of CC BY conditions. CC BY may be slightly misaligned with GPL such that latter's conditions not a strict superset of former. FSF says CC BY is not GPL compatible -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby
**Items to look at for potential incompatibilities and potential rectification:
*** [[4.0/Technical protection measures]]
*** [[4.0/Attribution and marking]]
**GPL compatibility is discussed in detail on this [[4.0/Games_3d_printing_and_functional_content#GPL_compatibility|page]].

''Please add other important considerations to this discussion here.''

=== Proposals relating to compatibility in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''Compatibility Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Clarify definition of Creative Commons Compatible License.''' (Currently, "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License, including, at a minimum, 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 adaptations of works made available under that license under this License or a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License."
* Pros:
* Cons: Current language is ambiguous. Does it mean (a) the compatible license must give options for a licensee to pick any of those CC licenses? Or does it mean that (b) the compatible license must give at least one of those CC licenses as an option?
* Other comments: Better wording (though I am not a native speaker) suggestions, for (a) and (b) above, respectively, are:
***(ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of adaptations of works made available under that license under any of the Creative Commons licenses with the same License Elements as this License, including this License.
***(ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of adaptations of works made available under that license under at least one of the Creative Commons licenses with the same License Elements as this License, such as this License, Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Australia license, or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Japan license.

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

* [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/thread.html#6474 Discussion about compatibility between CC and the Free Art License, started by Antoine Pitrou on 12/23/11]

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''

* [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_Puro_License Libre Puro License] (draft)
** [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License#Preamble_for_the_Libre_Puro_License Preamble]
** [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License_Draft_Creative_Commons_Deed License deed]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say Libre]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_knowledge Libre knowledge]

4.0/Sandbox

2012-01-23T23:27:54Z

Zotz: /* Collecting societies */

'''This page is designed as a gathering place for suggestions from the community. If you have an idea for an issue that is not yet addressed in one of the issue pages linked from the [[4.0]] page, please follow this process:'''

:# Review the existing issue pages to see if your new idea would fit on an existing page. If so, feel free to add it yourself.
:# Please refer to the [[Legalcode_errata | Legal Code Errata]]<ref> This page contains a list of errors and typos in the licenses. CC will be making changes in 4.0 to correct these problems (assuming the problematic text remains in 4.0).</ref> page to see if your concern is addressed here.
:# If the issue is not already addressed, please refer to the [[License_Versions | License Versions]] page to review issues debated in prior versions and the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/ CC license discuss archives].<ref>TK</ref> If you want to re-open a conversation on an issue or proposal debated in a prior versioning effort, please summarize and link to that prior discussion, indicating why the issue ought be revisited.
:# If your issue is not adequately covered, you can't find a proper home on these pages, or you would prefer that HQ decide where it best fits on the wiki, please add the issue in the relevant section below.

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==
''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''

== Collecting societies ==
''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''
* [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006645.html Suggested improvements for Attribution-Share Alike 4.0+ section 3.e.:] Basically only waive license fees if your licensee would benefit in a monetary way as a licensee.
** Also proposed Jan 2008: [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2008-January/006287.html Thoughts on new wording RE collection societies etc.]

== Choice of law and enforcement issues ==
''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''

== Drafting language and style ==
''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''

== NoDerivs condition ==
ND has not been nearly as discussed as [[4.0/NonCommercial|NC]], but it has the same problems of non-freeness and probable over-use. Some of the NC proposals (eg rebranding, dropping, or only keeping one instance of) have ND analogues that ought be separately and thoroughly evaluated.

Other ND issues:
* Should there be a clarification of what qualifies as "modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats"? For example, "algorithmic reductions of the color depth of still or moving images" in case printing in greyscale or b&w is not unambigously an "other media" or "format" unto itself? Proposed at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006530.html

== (Font) Embedding Issues ==
This issue comes from the field of font licensing: if you release a font under a CC-SA license, do all users who embed the font in their PDF documents have to put their PDFs under CC-SA as well?

The CC general counsel seems to believe that they do not. The German legal counsel seems to believe that the font creator can use a "font exception" (known from GNU), number 8. of the license notwithstanding.

I tend to see it differently, as do the vast majority of type designers and font publishers; their postition wrt font embedding is very clear and many of them have updated their license agreements to allow font embedding under restrictive terms (subsetting required etc.).

I'm coming from the font side of this, but I can imagine that there are many more fields, where this "if you modify the work itself, you need to reciprocate, if you just use it as it's supposed to be used without modifications, mere embedding/aggregating do not legally force you to use CC-SA" would be beneficial.

==Fair use baseline==

"CC 4.0 could promote fair use by guaranteeing fair use internationally. Just as the main terms of the CC license are applicable internationally, instead of simply specifying that the CC license doesn’t interfere with or supersede one’s common law or statutory fair use or fair dealing rights (because, you know, how could it?), the CC licenses could guarantee some uncontentious and shared subset of fair use/fair dealing rights as part of the license."

Above from http://blog.tommorris.org/post/14114334627/creative-commons-4-0-proposal-fair-use-baseline and discussion at https://plus.google.com/110114902730268262477/posts/PTnqvZHKEBT

==Time-based switch to more freedom==

Discussed in cc-licenses thread http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/thread.html#6453

Which freedoms gained?
* A particular condition (NC) is dropped after time (eg BY-NC-SA work becomes available under BY-SA in a specified year)
** This being intended as a replacement to current NC-licensing, i.e. CC 4.0 only offer NC licencing with a time-limited NC-condition, thus continuing to support desire for NC, but limit its attractiveness, changing BY-NC to BY or BY-NC-SA to BY-SA after 5, 10 etc. years
* All conditions dropped after time (eg work under any CC license also becomes available under CC0 in a specified year)

Mechanism?
* Time out of conditions built into all CC licenses, or those specifically to which relevant condition (eg NC) applies; eg part of using BY-NC-ND 4.0 is that work is available under CC0 after 28 years.
* Specific time-out duration is up to licensor; support built into license deed, license name and equivalent URLs, eg BY-NC(14)-SA for condition expires 14 years after publication or BY-NC(until-2017)-SA for year condition expires. This supports automatic discovery of originally closed-content licenced works that have become open content in the meantime.
* No specific support for time-out of conditions built into license, but documented, perhaps encouraged in license chooser, means of stipulating a work's availability with more freedoms after some time duration

In the wild examples:
* BY-NC-SA, CC0 after 5 years https://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/inconstant-moon-update-cc-by-nc-sa/
* Unmitigated copyright, CC BY after 2 years http://rechten.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2010/werkenau/boek_werkgever_en_auteursrecht.pdf mentioned in http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006502.html
* Practice of reviewing works 14 years after published, dedicating some or all to public domain http://everybodyslibraries.com/2012/01/01/public-domain-day-2012-five-things-we-can-do-in-the-us/

Related, abandoned mechanisms:
* http://web.archive.org/web/20021222180218/http://creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright and http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/06/07/ghostscript-free-now/ both discussed at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006454.html

== Other issues for 4.0 ==
''Please include a description of the issue with links to relevant references where applicable.''

*Explicitly support an open data commons addressing the different requirements of:
** public data providers (protect against abuse & misuse of data products - organisations & individuals credibility & reputations need an assurance) see UK Govt Open Government Licence: "ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source;" at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
***NOTE: CC licenses already contain a non-endorsement provision (Section 4b of CC BY v.3), which serves a similar function. CC licenses also preserve moral rights, which would often prevent someone from misrepresenting the licensed content. Together, these two aspects of CC licenses are designed to achieve the same effect of the provision in the OGL. Because they track other existing laws (trademark and moral rights), they do this without introducing extra ambiguity.
** public data consumers (mashup & recognition without attribution, as in one of perhaps hundreds of contributors) as in ODbL from http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
***Please see the [[4.0/Attribution and marking|Attribution and marking page]] for specific proposals designed to address this issue.

*Explicitly support open source, with CC licences consistent with GPL & BSD licences.
**This is critical in the computer gaming industry, where sound tracks, imagery & code need to have a single consistent licence which is applicable to the entire mix of components.

*Termination criteria should be relaxed.
**Any minor mistake that would result in the license compliance would lead to termination. The license says " terminate automatically upon any breach" (taken from CC-BY 3.0 Unported). Any licensee is banned from using the work again, even to correct his mistake. This is too harsh, given that when a licensee want to post something to a blog, wiki, or an SNS, there are a large number of things he needs to do. Quick correction to comply with the license should be accepted if nothing else. Please also see the termination criteria for [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPLv3] (Art.8) and [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GFDL v1.2] (Art 9). These languages were introduced by the latest revision, before which the criteria was as harsh as the CC licenses'.

*CC-licensed works are not share-able on common platforms. One way to address this issue is to change CC license terms.
** Many content sharing platforms, and even many of the CC-friendly platforms, require that a user uploading a content will grant a license to use the content for unattributed commercial usage, or give some other licenses without obliging them to give proper credits, not to impose an effective TPM, etc. It means that nobody except for rightholders can upload a CC-licensed work to share with others on those platforms. It also means nobody can share any adaptations of a CC-licensed work on those. Just to cite a few examples both Vimeo[http://vimeo.com/terms], and blip.tv[http://blip.tv/tos/] had terms of use, last time CCJP members checked, that made sharing of CC-licensed works (RiP! Remix Manifesto with Japanese subtitles) impossible if the uploading user is not the rightsholder. Flickr [http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html] and some YouTube ([http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=JP&template=terms JP], [http://www.youtube.com/t/terms?gl=GB&hl=en-GB UK]) ToUs seem to have the same conflict with CC licenses.
** Although the problem is widespread, it may be difficult to come up with a good language to grant platform owners additional license permissions and waive some of the obligations.
**NOTE: Relatedly, because CC licenses do not allow sublicensing, anyone other than the rightsholder cannot upload a CC-licensed work to platforms like Facebook. The TOU on Facebook and many other platforms require that the uploader grant a license to the platform for all uploaded content. Other than removing the prohibition against sublicensing in CC licenses (something that would have larger implications), there is probably no way to address this problem in Version 4.0.

*Consider explicitly introducing an interoperability clause for CC licenses such CC-BY.
**Right now, it is not clear without close examination of a pair of licenses, for example CC-BY-US 2.0 and CC-BY-JP 2.0 licenses, if they have the exact same set of permissions and obligations. Scope of use permitted by one of those licenses may be narrower than the other, in which case the works under those two different licenses are not compatible to a maximum degree.
**NOTE: As a general rule, the basic permissions are aligned across all ported licenses. This is arguably the single most important factor for interoperability. Nonetheless, the ported licenses do introduce complexity into the license suite, which can make it difficult for licensees to understand their obligations under different licenses.

*(Consider allowing sub-licensing, for at least adaptations created under BY-SA, but possibly for a lot wider range of uses.) : moved to [[4.0/Treatment_of_adaptations|Treatment of adaptation]] page ([http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FTreatment_of_adaptations&action=historysubmit&diff=54827&oldid=54267 by this edit])

*Consider providing clearer and more explicit guidance/ provisions as to licenses a licensee using a licensed work can choose to release the work or its adaptation. (In other words, make it easier for people to answer this frequent question: "I want to use this CC-licensed work in a particular way. But under which license can I release the work?"
**The CC-BY-SA licenses are clear and explicit which licenses a licensee can choose to release an adaptation, IF the licensee is distributing or publicly performing the adaptation. The licenses are not clearly stated, however, the range of choice when the licensee is handing a copy just to a few people, for example. Absent explicit grant of permissions, we should perhaps assume that it is prohibited to choose a later version of the license or CC Compatible license. Absent explicit requirement, perhaps it is okay to even fully copyright the adaptation.
**"You may not sublicense the Work" is a phrase found in multiple licenses. But such prohibition seem to exist only for a limited type of use - namely, when a licensee "distribute or publicly perform" "the Work". When a licensee shares the work within a small group (which is probably not "distribution" according to CC licenses definition section) or deals with adaptation, there is no such restriction. Does that mean a licensee can sublicense, then? I suppose not, because there is no explicit grant of such permission. But is it arguable in some cases that some implicit grant exist? I don't know the answer to that, but this is at least confusing for non-experts who want to read and understand license.
**But some would say that this issue may be better handled by a FAQ entry than a provision legal code.

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/Sandbox

2012-01-23T23:22:56Z

Zotz: /* Collecting societies */

'''This page is designed as a gathering place for suggestions from the community. If you have an idea for an issue that is not yet addressed in one of the issue pages linked from the [[4.0]] page, please follow this process:'''

:# Review the existing issue pages to see if your new idea would fit on an existing page. If so, feel free to add it yourself.
:# Please refer to the [[Legalcode_errata | Legal Code Errata]]<ref> This page contains a list of errors and typos in the licenses. CC will be making changes in 4.0 to correct these problems (assuming the problematic text remains in 4.0).</ref> page to see if your concern is addressed here.
:# If the issue is not already addressed, please refer to the [[License_Versions | License Versions]] page to review issues debated in prior versions and the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/ CC license discuss archives].<ref>TK</ref> If you want to re-open a conversation on an issue or proposal debated in a prior versioning effort, please summarize and link to that prior discussion, indicating why the issue ought be revisited.
:# If your issue is not adequately covered, you can't find a proper home on these pages, or you would prefer that HQ decide where it best fits on the wiki, please add the issue in the relevant section below.

== Disclaimer of warranties and related issues==
''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''

== Collecting societies ==
''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''
* [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006645.html Suggested improvements for Attribution-Share Alike 4.0+ section 3.e.:] Basically only waive license fees if your licensee would benefit in a monetary way as a licensee.

== Choice of law and enforcement issues ==
''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''

== Drafting language and style ==
''Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.''

== NoDerivs condition ==
ND has not been nearly as discussed as [[4.0/NonCommercial|NC]], but it has the same problems of non-freeness and probable over-use. Some of the NC proposals (eg rebranding, dropping, or only keeping one instance of) have ND analogues that ought be separately and thoroughly evaluated.

Other ND issues:
* Should there be a clarification of what qualifies as "modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats"? For example, "algorithmic reductions of the color depth of still or moving images" in case printing in greyscale or b&w is not unambigously an "other media" or "format" unto itself? Proposed at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006530.html

== (Font) Embedding Issues ==
This issue comes from the field of font licensing: if you release a font under a CC-SA license, do all users who embed the font in their PDF documents have to put their PDFs under CC-SA as well?

The CC general counsel seems to believe that they do not. The German legal counsel seems to believe that the font creator can use a "font exception" (known from GNU), number 8. of the license notwithstanding.

I tend to see it differently, as do the vast majority of type designers and font publishers; their postition wrt font embedding is very clear and many of them have updated their license agreements to allow font embedding under restrictive terms (subsetting required etc.).

I'm coming from the font side of this, but I can imagine that there are many more fields, where this "if you modify the work itself, you need to reciprocate, if you just use it as it's supposed to be used without modifications, mere embedding/aggregating do not legally force you to use CC-SA" would be beneficial.

==Fair use baseline==

"CC 4.0 could promote fair use by guaranteeing fair use internationally. Just as the main terms of the CC license are applicable internationally, instead of simply specifying that the CC license doesn’t interfere with or supersede one’s common law or statutory fair use or fair dealing rights (because, you know, how could it?), the CC licenses could guarantee some uncontentious and shared subset of fair use/fair dealing rights as part of the license."

Above from http://blog.tommorris.org/post/14114334627/creative-commons-4-0-proposal-fair-use-baseline and discussion at https://plus.google.com/110114902730268262477/posts/PTnqvZHKEBT

==Time-based switch to more freedom==

Discussed in cc-licenses thread http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/thread.html#6453

Which freedoms gained?
* A particular condition (NC) is dropped after time (eg BY-NC-SA work becomes available under BY-SA in a specified year)
** This being intended as a replacement to current NC-licensing, i.e. CC 4.0 only offer NC licencing with a time-limited NC-condition, thus continuing to support desire for NC, but limit its attractiveness, changing BY-NC to BY or BY-NC-SA to BY-SA after 5, 10 etc. years
* All conditions dropped after time (eg work under any CC license also becomes available under CC0 in a specified year)

Mechanism?
* Time out of conditions built into all CC licenses, or those specifically to which relevant condition (eg NC) applies; eg part of using BY-NC-ND 4.0 is that work is available under CC0 after 28 years.
* Specific time-out duration is up to licensor; support built into license deed, license name and equivalent URLs, eg BY-NC(14)-SA for condition expires 14 years after publication or BY-NC(until-2017)-SA for year condition expires. This supports automatic discovery of originally closed-content licenced works that have become open content in the meantime.
* No specific support for time-out of conditions built into license, but documented, perhaps encouraged in license chooser, means of stipulating a work's availability with more freedoms after some time duration

In the wild examples:
* BY-NC-SA, CC0 after 5 years https://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/inconstant-moon-update-cc-by-nc-sa/
* Unmitigated copyright, CC BY after 2 years http://rechten.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2010/werkenau/boek_werkgever_en_auteursrecht.pdf mentioned in http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006502.html
* Practice of reviewing works 14 years after published, dedicating some or all to public domain http://everybodyslibraries.com/2012/01/01/public-domain-day-2012-five-things-we-can-do-in-the-us/

Related, abandoned mechanisms:
* http://web.archive.org/web/20021222180218/http://creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright and http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/06/07/ghostscript-free-now/ both discussed at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006454.html

== Other issues for 4.0 ==
''Please include a description of the issue with links to relevant references where applicable.''

*Explicitly support an open data commons addressing the different requirements of:
** public data providers (protect against abuse & misuse of data products - organisations & individuals credibility & reputations need an assurance) see UK Govt Open Government Licence: "ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source;" at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
***NOTE: CC licenses already contain a non-endorsement provision (Section 4b of CC BY v.3), which serves a similar function. CC licenses also preserve moral rights, which would often prevent someone from misrepresenting the licensed content. Together, these two aspects of CC licenses are designed to achieve the same effect of the provision in the OGL. Because they track other existing laws (trademark and moral rights), they do this without introducing extra ambiguity.
** public data consumers (mashup & recognition without attribution, as in one of perhaps hundreds of contributors) as in ODbL from http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
***Please see the [[4.0/Attribution and marking|Attribution and marking page]] for specific proposals designed to address this issue.

*Explicitly support open source, with CC licences consistent with GPL & BSD licences.
**This is critical in the computer gaming industry, where sound tracks, imagery & code need to have a single consistent licence which is applicable to the entire mix of components.

*Termination criteria should be relaxed.
**Any minor mistake that would result in the license compliance would lead to termination. The license says " terminate automatically upon any breach" (taken from CC-BY 3.0 Unported). Any licensee is banned from using the work again, even to correct his mistake. This is too harsh, given that when a licensee want to post something to a blog, wiki, or an SNS, there are a large number of things he needs to do. Quick correction to comply with the license should be accepted if nothing else. Please also see the termination criteria for [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html GPLv3] (Art.8) and [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GFDL v1.2] (Art 9). These languages were introduced by the latest revision, before which the criteria was as harsh as the CC licenses'.

*CC-licensed works are not share-able on common platforms. One way to address this issue is to change CC license terms.
** Many content sharing platforms, and even many of the CC-friendly platforms, require that a user uploading a content will grant a license to use the content for unattributed commercial usage, or give some other licenses without obliging them to give proper credits, not to impose an effective TPM, etc. It means that nobody except for rightholders can upload a CC-licensed work to share with others on those platforms. It also means nobody can share any adaptations of a CC-licensed work on those. Just to cite a few examples both Vimeo[http://vimeo.com/terms], and blip.tv[http://blip.tv/tos/] had terms of use, last time CCJP members checked, that made sharing of CC-licensed works (RiP! Remix Manifesto with Japanese subtitles) impossible if the uploading user is not the rightsholder. Flickr [http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html] and some YouTube ([http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=JP&template=terms JP], [http://www.youtube.com/t/terms?gl=GB&hl=en-GB UK]) ToUs seem to have the same conflict with CC licenses.
** Although the problem is widespread, it may be difficult to come up with a good language to grant platform owners additional license permissions and waive some of the obligations.
**NOTE: Relatedly, because CC licenses do not allow sublicensing, anyone other than the rightsholder cannot upload a CC-licensed work to platforms like Facebook. The TOU on Facebook and many other platforms require that the uploader grant a license to the platform for all uploaded content. Other than removing the prohibition against sublicensing in CC licenses (something that would have larger implications), there is probably no way to address this problem in Version 4.0.

*Consider explicitly introducing an interoperability clause for CC licenses such CC-BY.
**Right now, it is not clear without close examination of a pair of licenses, for example CC-BY-US 2.0 and CC-BY-JP 2.0 licenses, if they have the exact same set of permissions and obligations. Scope of use permitted by one of those licenses may be narrower than the other, in which case the works under those two different licenses are not compatible to a maximum degree.
**NOTE: As a general rule, the basic permissions are aligned across all ported licenses. This is arguably the single most important factor for interoperability. Nonetheless, the ported licenses do introduce complexity into the license suite, which can make it difficult for licensees to understand their obligations under different licenses.

*(Consider allowing sub-licensing, for at least adaptations created under BY-SA, but possibly for a lot wider range of uses.) : moved to [[4.0/Treatment_of_adaptations|Treatment of adaptation]] page ([http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0%2FTreatment_of_adaptations&action=historysubmit&diff=54827&oldid=54267 by this edit])

*Consider providing clearer and more explicit guidance/ provisions as to licenses a licensee using a licensed work can choose to release the work or its adaptation. (In other words, make it easier for people to answer this frequent question: "I want to use this CC-licensed work in a particular way. But under which license can I release the work?"
**The CC-BY-SA licenses are clear and explicit which licenses a licensee can choose to release an adaptation, IF the licensee is distributing or publicly performing the adaptation. The licenses are not clearly stated, however, the range of choice when the licensee is handing a copy just to a few people, for example. Absent explicit grant of permissions, we should perhaps assume that it is prohibited to choose a later version of the license or CC Compatible license. Absent explicit requirement, perhaps it is okay to even fully copyright the adaptation.
**"You may not sublicense the Work" is a phrase found in multiple licenses. But such prohibition seem to exist only for a limited type of use - namely, when a licensee "distribute or publicly perform" "the Work". When a licensee shares the work within a small group (which is probably not "distribution" according to CC licenses definition section) or deals with adaptation, there is no such restriction. Does that mean a licensee can sublicense, then? I suppose not, because there is no explicit grant of such permission. But is it arguable in some cases that some implicit grant exist? I don't know the answer to that, but this is at least confusing for non-experts who want to read and understand license.
**But some would say that this issue may be better handled by a FAQ entry than a provision legal code.

== Notes ==
<references/>

4.0/ShareAlike

2012-01-23T23:15:49Z

Zotz: /* Proposals relating to SA scope in 4.0 */ Attempt to restate my ideas for a stronger copyleft for BY-SA 4.0+ in alternate language

{{4.0 Issue}}

There are roughly three issues that have been discussed for years that could potentially be addressed. Ideally, addressing one or more of these could increase clarity of relevant CC licenses, and increase range of and differentiation within CC license suite.

==ShareAlike scope==

Effectively, this has been treated as identical to potentially tweaking the definition of adaptations vs collections.
* Version 2.0 added "For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License." (Please discuss this particular clarifying language on the [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/license_subject_matter#Automatic_localization_of_the_license License subject matter page].)
* Many have wanted something similar added clarifying when use of an image creates an adaptation/derivative. This was visited especially during discussions with the Wikimedia community, leading to no immediate change, but an assurance that the scope of BY-SA's copyleft would only be increased, if changed at all in the 3rd point of [[CC Attribution-ShareAlike Intent]]

Relatedly, it has also been pointed out that CC license definitions of work/adaptation/collection are somewhat hard to read.

For further discussion, visit the [[4.0/Games_3d_printing_and_functional_content#Increasing.2Fclarifying_scope_of_what.27s_a_derivative|Games, 3D printing, and functional content page]].

=== Proposals relating to SA scope in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''SA Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Make no changes.'''
* Pros:
* Cons: Does not allow the creation to evolve. It is not made clear how to incorporate SA materials into otherwise licensed works.
* Other comments: There is already a 'no derivatives' option. The concept of derivation could be made more clear with examples such as "remix, translate, integrate, aggregate, etc."

'''''SA Proposal No. 2:''''' '''Make work/adaptation/collection definitions easier to read, but strive to not make any effective change.'''
* Pros: Will clarify terminology.
* Cons: New observations based on experience with current CC licenses may bot be taken into account.
* Other comments: Explain that the Share Alike clause discourages exploitave commercial uses while still allowing commerce in the commons and OER landscape.

'''''SA Proposal No. 3:''''' '''Expand scope of adaptation (thus SA) specifically for some class of use of images, analogous to synching added in 2.0.'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments: Also allow certain exceptions such as mixing CC-by-SA with GPL or similarly spirited licenses.

'''''SA Proposal No. 4:''''' '''A more aggressive expansion of SA, including some collections, except those that are mere aggregations (see GPL).'''
* Pros:
* Cons:
* Other comments:
* [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006644.html Attempt to restate my ideas for a stronger copyleft for BY-SA 4.0+ in alternate language by drew Roberts]

'''''SA Proposal No. 5:''''' '''Share the wealth clause, requesting that commercial gain (e.g. profits) be shared back to the original creator(s).'''
* Pros: gives financial incentive to release assets under Free Culture Certified licenses. Reduces concern about commercial (ab)uses of creative works.
* Cons:
** May be hard to figure out proportional income distribution. Perhaps a general guideline could ease this process.
** Introduces some of the issues raised by [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial the NC term] - namely, confusion over what is commercial use ('profits' are mentioned in this proposal) and could be a disincentive to share and remix works where otherwise allowed. NC is often adopted out of a (perhaps largely misguided because SA addresses it) concern for commercial exploitation. If 'share the wealth' becomes a new trend ('Yeah, of course I want to choose the option to receive money from others who use my work!') it may heavily reduce the cultural value of any works under that license.
* Other comments:
** Create a table of fair share profit distribution (perhaps percentage based) to guide the reciprocative process.
** Difficult to determine how to share profits. May need a public directory of CC licensors and their payment details. Perhaps link this in with profile pages on the CC site, creating an incentive to register your works here. (However, my understanding is that this costs the user a (albeit minimal) yearly fee, reducing access to this service.)

''Please add other SA proposals here, and number them sequentially.''

==Source-requiring SA==

(Note that scope and whether source required are independent of each other.)

Some would like a copyleft for creative works that requires not just sharing adaptations under the same license, but making preferred form for modification available, as the GPL does for software. FDL includes a weaker requirement of providing copies in "transparent" formats. Especially the former may be too far for BY-SA to go (but costs/benefits could be listed to see). Could possibly be addressed via compatibility, see next.

==Compatibility with other copyleft licenses==

Directly related to the interoperability goal of 4.0. The following licenses have been discussed at various points, regarding compatibility with BY-SA:
* [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html Free Documentation License]
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GPL] (unique among these, could only be one-way with BY-SA as donor; would address desire for source-requiring license, long-term trend toward more mixing of "code" and "content" in ways beyond former accessing latter) MPL2 contains a [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0 mechanism for compatibility with GPL, with limitations], that may be a useful model.
* [http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Open Database LIcense] (ODbL)

Some things to consider in 4.0 process:
* What could be done to bring BY-SA into better alignment technically with these other licenses where they are in the same spirit?
* Should explicit compatibility with any of these be aimed for? In theory this could be a post-4.0 discussion assuming compatible licenses hook remains, but in practice, if compatibility is to be possible, 4.0 changes should be considered in that light
* Discuss with stewards of each of above licenses, with regard to BY-SA 4.0, future versions of their licenses, alignment, and explicit compatibility statements
* Similar to above, discuss with other stewards possibility of agreeing on/promoting common license text

===Considerations regarding compatibility of other licenses===

* Consider addressing uncertainty regarding releasing a work (adaptation/ derivative) under a CC Compatible license
**When I thought about CC-BY-SA 3.0 --> GFDL transition as a hypothetical case, it was not necessarily all clear how I would "follow" GFDL after creating a derivative of a CC-BY-SA'd work.
**To address the uncertainty, consider developing a "exemplary practice guideline" that would serve as a "safe harber" - i.e. the range of practice that is considered to be "in compliance" with both licenses for the transition purposes. Practice outside of the guideline may be okay, or maybe not. Insert some language to make this safe harbor effective in 4.0. After some licenses become compatible, develop such guidelines with steward of the compatible license.

*''GPL Compatibility.'' CC BY does not make any specific requirements on the exact license an adaptation may be released under, but it ought be possible for downstream licensee of adaptation to fulfill CC BY conditions when fulfilling conditions of license adaptation offered under, ie conditions of license adaption under should be a superset of CC BY conditions. CC BY may be slightly misaligned with GPL such that latter's conditions not a strict superset of former. FSF says CC BY is not GPL compatible -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby
**Items to look at for potential incompatibilities and potential rectification:
*** [[4.0/Technical protection measures]]
*** [[4.0/Attribution and marking]]
**GPL compatibility is discussed in detail on this [[4.0/Games_3d_printing_and_functional_content#GPL_compatibility|page]].

''Please add other important considerations to this discussion here.''

=== Proposals relating to compatibility in 4.0 ===
''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''

'''''Compatibility Proposal No. 1:''''' '''Clarify definition of Creative Commons Compatible License.''' (Currently, "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License, including, at a minimum, 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 adaptations of works made available under that license under this License or a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License."
* Pros:
* Cons: Current language is ambiguous. Does it mean (a) the compatible license must give options for a licensee to pick any of those CC licenses? Or does it mean that (b) the compatible license must give at least one of those CC licenses as an option?
* Other comments: Better wording (though I am not a native speaker) suggestions, for (a) and (b) above, respectively, are:
***(ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of adaptations of works made available under that license under any of the Creative Commons licenses with the same License Elements as this License, including this License.
***(ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of adaptations of works made available under that license under at least one of the Creative Commons licenses with the same License Elements as this License, such as this License, Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Australia license, or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Japan license.

== Related debate ==
''We encourage you to sign up for the license discussion mailing list, where we will be debating this and other 4.0 proposals. HQ will provide links to related email threads from the license discussion mailing list here.''

* [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/thread.html#6474 Discussion about compatibility between CC and the Free Art License, started by Antoine Pitrou on 12/23/11]

== Relevant references ==
''Please add citations that ought inform this 4.0 issue below.''

* [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_Puro_License Libre Puro License] (draft)
** [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License#Preamble_for_the_Libre_Puro_License Preamble]
** [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_License_Draft_Creative_Commons_Deed License deed]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say Libre]
* [http://wikieducator.org/Libre_knowledge Libre knowledge]

Kompoz

2009-11-22T15:50:45Z

Zotz:

{{ContentDirectory
|format=Sound|mainurl=http://www.kompoz.com/
|ccportal=http://www.kompoz.com/
|size=200
}}
* CC-only portal: everything is CC-licensed
* CC-only feed: RSS
* http://kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/home.developer
* Notes: Kompoz.com is a social networking site for creating multi-track songs online with other musicians. With Kompoz, you can collaborate with anyone to create and mix a new generation of independent music based on the open standards of the "Creative Commons".
* Size last updated 20070321. 200+ artists, growing daily

[[Category:Content_Directory]]

Kompoz

2009-11-22T15:47:15Z

Zotz: another attempt to get kompoz to show in the content directory page under sound

{{ContentDirectory
|format=Sound|mainurl=http://www.kompoz.com/
|ccportal=http://www.jkompoz.com/
|size=200
}}
* CC-only portal: everything is CC-licensed
* CC-only feed: RSS
* http://kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/home.developer
* Notes: Kompoz.com is a social networking site for creating multi-track songs online with other musicians. With Kompoz, you can collaborate with anyone to create and mix a new generation of independent music based on the open standards of the "Creative Commons".
* Size last updated 20070321. 200+ artists, growing daily

[[Category:Content_Directory]]

Kompoz

2009-11-22T15:41:21Z

Zotz: trying to get this to show here: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Content_Directories

{{ContentDirectory
|mainurl=http://www.kompoz.com/
|ccportal=http://www.kompoz.com/
|ccfeed=http://kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/recent.list.project?v=rss
|format=Sound
}}
* CC-only portal: everything is CC-licensed
* CC-only feed: RSS
* http://kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/home.developer
* Notes: Kompoz.com is a social networking site for creating multi-track songs online with other musicians. With Kompoz, you can collaborate with anyone to create and mix a new generation of independent music based on the open standards of the "Creative Commons".
* Size last updated 20070321. 200+ artists, growing daily

[[Category:Content_Directory]]

Creative Commons and Terms of Use Conflicts

2009-11-20T14:01:35Z

Zotz: added a purpose statement

Creative Commons and Terms of Use Conflicts

This is just a start. This problem is also perhaps just a subset of a larger problem which I hope to address further at some point in the future.

I will post my initial email to Mike below to document the idea and then below that begin developing the page proper. Then these notes can be moved or removed as the page takes shape.

drew

----------

drew Roberts to Mike

show details Nov 17 (3 days ago)

This will just be an example to illustrate the idea:

I was checking into Bandcamp a bit and was looking at their "Bandcamp
Terms of Use"
http://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use

So I get to this part:

"To enable Company to Host your Music pursuant to the above
provisions, you hereby grant to Company the worldwide, non-exclusive,
royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable right to use, reproduce,
copy, and display your trademarks, service marks, slogans, logos or
similar proprietary rights (collectively, the “Trademarks”) solely in
connection with the Service."

and I notice the word "sublicensable" and a bell goes off in my head.

So I check:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
and
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode

and search for "sublicense" and I wonder if the "Bandcamp Terms of
Use" effectively eliminate the use or remixed cc work even for the
very liberal BY license.

Not to mention what other bits of the "Bandcamp Terms of Use" also
might conflict.

OK, here is the basic idea. For CC to do the work or facilitate the
work to show sites such as bandcamp how to adjust their agreements so
as to allow cc licensed works (or at least the Free ones) to be of use
and where possible to craft their agreements so that their business
model can work with just the rights granted by the Free cc licenses
themselves.

I think this will either make it much easier to license our work with
cc licenses while still taking advantage of what such sites can offer,
or encourage more experimenting with cc licenses on the part of those
using such sites, or reduce the legal problems of people who put songs
making otherwise legal use of cc licensed music in their stuff and
then posting it to such sites without a full understanding of the
interactions of the licenses and the TOS.

I hope this was at least halfway clear. I would be happy to try and
refine it if you think it has any legs at all.

all the best,

drew

----------

The purpose of this page will be to document such conflicts and to suggest possible solutions.

(Personally, I am really only interested in using the Free cc licenses, by and by-sa, and much prefer by-sa for my own works. Therefore, my thoughts may not apply to those using NC in their licenses and those interested in that can add any necessary sections to deal with the same if it is possible to do so.)

Creative Commons and Terms of Use Conflicts

2009-11-20T13:53:55Z

Zotz: added example statement of problem from initial email to Mike

Creative Commons and Terms of Use Conflicts

2009-11-20T13:50:14Z

Zotz: Initial page creation

Creative Commons and Terms of Use Conflicts

This is just a start. This problem is also perhaps just a subset of a larger problem which I hope to address further at some point in the future.