4.0/Compatibility - Revision history

CCID-shinchpearson: /* Summary */

2014-04-24T21:56:17Z

‎Summary

Kat Walsh: more past-tensing

2013-12-09T18:47:51Z

more past-tensing

CCID-diane peters at 19:06, 11 September 2013

2013-09-11T19:06:13Z

CCID-shinchpearson at 23:19, 9 September 2013

2013-09-09T23:19:39Z

Kat Walsh: more accurate summary

2013-06-06T17:48:27Z

more accurate summary

Kat Walsh: headings again

2013-05-20T18:01:44Z

headings again

Kat Walsh: headings

2013-05-20T18:01:03Z

headings

Kat Walsh: /* Draft 3 */ fmt,placeholder for update

2013-05-20T18:00:18Z

‎Draft 3: fmt,placeholder for update

Kat Walsh: fix format

2013-05-20T17:48:18Z

fix format

Kat Walsh: collapse drafts 1 and 2, header scheme

2013-05-20T17:37:06Z

collapse drafts 1 and 2, header scheme

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Summary==
 <div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
-'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons changed the definition of "compatible license" to allow for more possibilities, including one-way compatibility. A discussion about criteria and processes for determining other compatible licenses will happen after the launch of 4.0. Additionally, a compatibility mechanism was added to BY-NC-SA. Compatibility was first introduced in version 3.0, although no licenses have yet been declared compatible. </div>
+'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons changed the definition of "compatible license" to allow for more possibilities, including one-way compatibility. A discussion about [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ShareAlike_compatibility_criteria criteria and processes for determining other compatible licenses] will happen after the launch of 4.0. Additionally, a compatibility mechanism was added to BY-NC-SA. Compatibility was first introduced in version 3.0, although no licenses have yet been declared compatible. </div>
 ==Treatment in drafts==

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Summary==
 <div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
-'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons is changing the definition of "compatible license" to allow for more possibilities, including one-way compatibility. A discussion about criteria and processes for determining other compatible licenses will happen after the launch of 4.0. Additionally, a compatibility mechanism was added to BY-NC-SA. Compatibility was first introduced in version 3.0, although no licenses have yet been declared compatible. </div>
+'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons changed the definition of "compatible license" to allow for more possibilities, including one-way compatibility. A discussion about criteria and processes for determining other compatible licenses will happen after the launch of 4.0. Additionally, a compatibility mechanism was added to BY-NC-SA. Compatibility was first introduced in version 3.0, although no licenses have yet been declared compatible. </div>
 ==Treatment in drafts==

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 After a period of consultation, we have decided to go forward with the changes proposed earlier: we will keep the revised definition of a compatible license, and will be including the compatibility mechanism in BY-NC-SA.
-We are also changing the defined term for compatible licenses. Instead of "Creative Commons Compatible License,” we will use "ShareAlike Compatible License" and "NonCommercial-ShareAlike Compatible License" to refer to licenses that are compatible with BY-SA and BY-NC-SA respectively. This change will help differentiate between the separate sets of licenses that are compatible with BY-SA and BY-NC-SA, and will help make it clear that the terms only refer to licenses that are compatible with the ShareAlike licenses.
+We are also changing the defined term for compatible licenses. Instead of "Creative Commons Compatible License,” we will use "BY-SA Compatible License" and "BY-NC-SA Compatible License" to refer to licenses that are compatible with BY-SA and BY-NC-SA respectively. This change will help differentiate the sets of licenses that are compatible with BY-SA and BY-NC-SA, and will help make it clear that the terms only refer to licenses that are compatible with the ShareAlike licenses.
 }}
@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 In general, a license may be compatible with one of the CC licenses when it is possible to comply with both sets of license terms simultaneously. When two licenses are compatible, you may take a work licensed under the first license, remix it and thereby create an adaptation, and apply the compatible license to your remix. The ShareAlike licenses are a special case: because of the copyleft mechanism, only licenses that CC has explicitly named may be compatible. For the BY and BY-NC licenses, compatibility is less constrained, and more complex. More detail and explanation about compatibility for the non-ShareAlike licenses is on the [[4.0/Treatment_of_adaptations|Treatment of Adaptations]] page.
-Explaining compatibility with ShareAlike first requires knowing how adaptations work in general. By definition, an adaptation is a new work based on the pre-existing work and new contributions by the person creating the adaptation.  The rights of the adapting remixer does not extend to the pre-existing material.<ref>Article 2(3) of the Berne Convention: “Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works ''without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.''” (emphasis added) </ref> '''This is a complexity of copyright law, not the CC licenses themselves.'''  Thus, when an adaptation of a CC-licensed work is created and licensed, the new license only applies to the adapter’s new contributions and not the original content. The original work is licensed to the downstream user directly from the original author. A user of an adaptation licensed under a CC license is receiving and must comply with (at least) two licenses -- one from the creator of the original work, and a second from the adapter (the person creating and licensing the adaptation) for use of the new content and modifications contributed by the adapter.
+Explaining compatibility with ShareAlike first requires knowing how adaptations work in general. By definition, an adaptation is a new work based on the pre-existing work and new contributions by the person creating the adaptation.  The rights of the adapting remixer does not extend to the pre-existing material.<ref>Article 2(3) of the Berne Convention: “Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works ''without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.''” (emphasis added) </ref> '''This is a complexity of copyright law, not the CC licenses themselves.'''  In the CC licenses, when an adaptation of a CC-licensed work is created and licensed, the new license only applies to the adapter’s new contributions and not the original content. The original work is licensed to the downstream user directly from the original author. A user of an adaptation licensed under a CC license is receiving and must comply with (at least) two licenses -- one from the creator of the original work, and a second from the adapter (the person creating and licensing the adaptation) for use of the new content and modifications contributed by the adapter.
-When you make an adaptation of a ShareAlike work, you must make that adaptation under a compatible license. For ShareAlike, compatibility is allowed through the definition within the license as well as the section on sharing Adaptations. However, CC has not yet named any other licenses as compatible with ShareAlike. This page explores the mechanism and process for doing so, as well as potential candidates for compatibility.
+When you make an adaptation of a ShareAlike work, you must make that adaptation available under a compatible license. For ShareAlike, compatibility is allowed through the definition within the license as well as the section on sharing Adaptations. However, CC has not yet named any other licenses as compatible with ShareAlike. This page explores the mechanism and process for doing so, as well as potential candidates for compatibility.
 ===Potential compatible licenses===

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Summary==
 <div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
-'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons is exploring mechanisms and processes for compatibility with the ShareAlike licenses, with a particular eye toward future compatibility with the  [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License] and the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL v3.0.]  A compatibility mechanism was first introduced in version 3.0, although no [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses licenses] have yet been declared compatibile. </div>
+'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons is changing the definition of "compatible license" to allow for more possibilities, including one-way compatibility. A discussion about criteria and processes for determining other compatible licenses will happen after the launch of 4.0. Additionally, a compatibility mechanism was added to BY-NC-SA. Compatibility was first introduced in version 3.0, although no licenses have yet been declared compatible. </div>
 ==Treatment in drafts==
@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
-{{Infobox|
 ===Draft 3===
 In this draft, the definition of “Creative Commons Compatible License” has been revised to remove the minimum criteria for what is “essentially the same as this Public License”.  This change leaves the essential part of the definition within the text, but provides an opportunity for CC to engage in a longer discussion with the community about some possible changes while not holding up the versioning process.  '''Please take note''' that this removal should not be taken as a sign that CC has made up its mind as to the outcome, or is even leaning in some particular direction -- it is merely building in flexibility to have a longer discussion before any decision (let alone any change) is made.  Our goal has been to design a mechanism that can be used if such a decision is made after further discussion, thereby avoid the need for versioning once again.
@@ Line 39: / Line 46: @@
 Finally, we will be developing in collaboration with our community a more complete set of criteria for determining compatibility (two-way and, if a decision is made to pursue one-way, then that as well).  Those criteria would live outside the license text on established pages.  This will also involve development of a process for determining compatibility and, ultimately, a list of compatible licenses.
 }}
 ==Overview==
@@ Line 91: / Line 104: @@
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Not addressed.
 * '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Definition changed as explained in the summary at the top of the page.
 == Related debate ==

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Summary==
 <div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
-'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons is exploring compatibility with the stewards of the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License] and the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL v3.0.]  Compatibility was first introduced in version 3.0, although no [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses licenses] have yet been declared compatibile. </div>
+'''Page summary:''' Creative Commons is exploring mechanisms and processes for compatibility with the ShareAlike licenses, with a particular eye toward future compatibility with the  [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License] and the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL v3.0.]  A compatibility mechanism was first introduced in version 3.0, although no [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses licenses] have yet been declared compatibile. </div>
 ==Treatment in drafts==

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 |}
 ===Draft 3===
 In this draft, the definition of “Creative Commons Compatible License” has been revised to remove the minimum criteria for what is “essentially the same as this Public License”.  This change leaves the essential part of the definition within the text, but provides an opportunity for CC to engage in a longer discussion with the community about some possible changes while not holding up the versioning process.  '''Please take note''' that this removal should not be taken as a sign that CC has made up its mind as to the outcome, or is even leaning in some particular direction -- it is merely building in flexibility to have a longer discussion before any decision (let alone any change) is made.  Our goal has been to design a mechanism that can be used if such a decision is made after further discussion, thereby avoid the need for versioning once again.
@@ Line 38: / Line 39: @@
 Finally, we will be developing in collaboration with our community a more complete set of criteria for determining compatibility (two-way and, if a decision is made to pursue one-way, then that as well).  Those criteria would live outside the license text on established pages.  This will also involve development of a process for determining compatibility and, ultimately, a list of compatible licenses.}}
+====Draft 3 update====
 ==Overview==

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==Treatment in drafts==
 {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
-! (expand to read)
+! (expand to read Draft 1 treatment)
 |-
+|
-{{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' Not directly addressed in draft 1.}}
+{{Infobox |
 |}
 {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
-! (expand to read)
+! (expand to read Draft 2 treatment)
 |-
+|
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 {| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
 |valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
-'''Draft 2 Treatment:'''  Discussions are underway but have not progressed to the point where specific CC provisions have been adjusted.  Both FAL and GPL have been extensively reviewed, however.  Where small points of convergence are easily made without substantive changes, those have been incorporated in our drafting.
+===Draft 2===
 |}
 |}

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 '''Page summary:''' Creative Commons is exploring compatibility with the stewards of the [http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License] and the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU GPL v3.0.]  Compatibility was first introduced in version 3.0, although no [http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses licenses] have yet been declared compatibile. </div>
 {{Infobox |'''Draft 1 Treatment:''' Not directly addressed in draft 1.}}
 {| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
 |valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"|
 '''Draft 2 Treatment:'''  Discussions are underway but have not progressed to the point where specific CC provisions have been adjusted.  Both FAL and GPL have been extensively reviewed, however.  Where small points of convergence are easily made without substantive changes, those have been incorporated in our drafting.
 |}
 {{Infobox|'''Draft 3 Treatment:'''
 In this draft, the definition of “Creative Commons Compatible License” has been revised to remove the minimum criteria for what is “essentially the same as this Public License”.  This change leaves the essential part of the definition within the text, but provides an opportunity for CC to engage in a longer discussion with the community about some possible changes while not holding up the versioning process.  '''Please take note''' that this removal should not be taken as a sign that CC has made up its mind as to the outcome, or is even leaning in some particular direction -- it is merely building in flexibility to have a longer discussion before any decision (let alone any change) is made.  Our goal has been to design a mechanism that can be used if such a decision is made after further discussion, thereby avoid the need for versioning once again.
@@ Line 16: / Line 32: @@
 Additionally, the compatibility mechanism has now been included in the BY-NC-SA license as well as BY-SA. This is not expected to have much practical effect: CC is not currently aware of any license that would be a candidate for compatibility, nor do we expect one to be written. The possible downside is that including such a mechanism may indirectly encourage others to develop such a license, in the knowledge that it would be possible to become compatible in the future. However, in light of our goal for 4.0 of greater interoperability, we believe that on balance including this mechanism is the right decision even if it goes unused.
-For the d3 discussion period in particularly, we will first be seeking input on the revision to the Creative Commons Compatible License definition to enable one-way compatibility from BY-SA to other similarly-spirited ShareAlike licenses. The previous definition foreclosed this possibility entirely, requiring that any license recognized as compatible must be two-way compatible. In the current draft, one-way compatibility is not explicitly enabled, but the possibility is not closed off.  This issue requires more community discussion to determine whether the license community believes that enabling one-way compatibility respects the expectations of the SA license, and if so, how best to enable it.
+For the d3 discussion period in particular, we will first be seeking input on the revision to the Creative Commons Compatible License definition to enable one-way compatibility from BY-SA to other similarly-spirited ShareAlike licenses. The previous definition foreclosed this possibility entirely, requiring that any license recognized as compatible must be two-way compatible. In the current draft, one-way compatibility is not explicitly enabled, but the possibility is not closed off.  This issue requires more community discussion to determine whether the license community believes that enabling one-way compatibility respects the expectations of the SA license, and if so, how best to enable it.
 Second, we will seek feedback on the inclusion of the compatibility mechanism in BY-NC-SA. Note that issues relating to compatibility for BY and BY-NC are raised on the [[4.0/Treatment_of_adaptations | Treatment of Adaptations page]].
@@ Line 23: / Line 39: @@
+==Overview==
-====How CC thinks about compatibility generally====
+===How CC thinks about compatibility generally===
 In general, a license may be compatible with one of the CC licenses when it is possible to comply with both sets of license terms simultaneously. When two licenses are compatible, you may take a work licensed under the first license, remix it and thereby create an adaptation, and apply the compatible license to your remix. The ShareAlike licenses are a special case: because of the copyleft mechanism, only licenses that CC has explicitly named may be compatible. For the BY and BY-NC licenses, compatibility is less constrained, and more complex. More detail and explanation about compatibility for the non-ShareAlike licenses is on the [[4.0/Treatment_of_adaptations|Treatment of Adaptations]] page.
@@ Line 32: / Line 48: @@
 When you make an adaptation of a ShareAlike work, you must make that adaptation under a compatible license. For ShareAlike, compatibility is allowed through the definition within the license as well as the section on sharing Adaptations. However, CC has not yet named any other licenses as compatible with ShareAlike. This page explores the mechanism and process for doing so, as well as potential candidates for compatibility.
-====FAL Compatibility====
+===Potential compatible licenses===
 In CC's view, FAL 1.3 is a strong candidate for two-way compatibility with BY-SA 4.0.  Discussions are currently underway that we hope will allow remixing between two similarly-spirited but currently separate islands of content.  We are working through details of what adjustments may need to be made in order to accomplish this goal.  We will be vetting those fully with our communities between now and d3.  It is possible that some tweaks may needed to be made to our licenses to make that happen, affecting current drafting.  In terms of operationalizing such a statement on the CC side either through a reference in the license itself or inclusion on our existing (empty) webpage [link], this is an open question that will be addressed once more progress is made.  For now, d2 contains the same compatibility language as 3.0 and maintains the definition of Creative Commons Compatible License and structure.
-====GPL Compatibility====
+====GPL====
 CC is also looking at one-way compatibility from BY and BY-SA to the GNU GPL v3.0.  While the benefits may not seem immediately apparent to some given that CC is suitable for content and not software, the reality is that increasingly, people are creating works that mix content and code in ways that create uncertainty around how the licenses interact. As software becomes a greater part of artistic creation in the future, we want to be sure that people who want to release these works freely can do so without worrying about potential compatibility problems.
@@ Line 57: / Line 74: @@
 ''Please add other important considerations to this discussion here.''
-=== Proposals relating to compatibility in 4.0 ===
+== Proposals relating to compatibility in 4.0 ==
 ''For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.''