Difference between revisions of "ShareAlike compatibility: GPLv3"

This page documents the primary decisions made by Creative Commons when considering the GNU General Public License version 3 (the "GPL") for one-way ShareAlike compatibility pursuant to the compatibility process and criteria.

Timeline

• The GPL was proposed by CC and the Free Software Foundation as a candidate for one-way compatibility on 29 January 2015.
• CC published a preliminary analysis of compatibility with GPL on its wiki.
• Public discussion period ran from 29 January to 2 April 2015.
• Compatibility determination published on __ May 2015 and GPLv3 added to the CC compatible license page

License texts analyzed

• GPLv3
• BY-SA 4.0

How one-compatibility operates

When someone adapts a BY-SA work into a GPLv3 project, both licenses apply and downstream users must comply with both. However, because of Section 2(a)(5)(B) of BY-SA 4.0, anyone who receives the adapted material downstream may satisfy the conditions of both BY-SA and GPLv3 (i.e. attribution and ShareAlike) in the manner dictated by the GPLv3.

People may *not* take GPLv3 work and apply BY-SA to their contributions. This compatibility determination only allows movement one way, from BY-SA to GPL.

For more information, see the compatibility-specific FAQs and explanatory information here. We also encourage you to read this list of considerations before applying the GPLv3 as the adapter’s license.

Gatekeeping determination

In 2008, Creative Commons published the CC Attribution-ShareAlike Statement of Intent, in which CC articulated its intentions as steward for the SA licenses. In point 4 of the statement, CC commits that "any candidate for compatibility must also satisfy the definition of a Free Cultural License set out in the Definition of Free Cultural Works." This criteria serves as the initial gatekeeping factor for all candidate licenses.

The General Public License v.3 is listed as a Free Cultural License, and conforms to the Open Definition.

Policy decisions

Attribution

The specific attribution and marking requirements in the two licenses vary slightly.

BY-SA requires:

1. creator and attribution parties (if supplied)
2. copyright notice (if supplied)
3. license notice (if supplied)
4. disclaimer notice (if supplied)
5. URI or link to the licensed material (if supplied)
6. indicate and link to license

If you change the work, BY-SA also requires you to indicate that you did so and retain any notice on the work about previous changes made to it. BY-SA requires reusers to remove attribution when requested by the licensor.

GPL requires:

1. copyright notice
2. license notices and notice of Section 7 additional conditions (if supplied)
3. notices about lack of warranty (if supplied)
4. copy of the license

If you change the work, GPL requires you include a prominent notice to indicate that you did so, along with the relevant date. It also requires special notices for certain interactive user interfaces. GPLv3 does not have an attribution removal clause.

When BY-SA content is adapted into a GPL-licensed project, the adapter has to comply with the BY-SA attribution and marking requirements. However, Section 2(a)(5)(B) of BY-SA 4.0 enables downstream reusers of the GPL-licensed project to look to the GPL to satisfy their obligations to both authors. CC determined that GPL-style attribution would satisfy the expectations of BY-SA licensors.

License scope

The tone and scope of the two licenses differ, due largely to the fact that the GPLv3 was designed for use with software and software-like works. Both licenses are primarily designed to license copyright, but each license also covers some rights closely related to copyright. GPL covers “copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks,” while BY-SA covers “Copyright and Similar Rights,” which is defined to include neighboring rights, sui generis database rights, and other closely-related rights.

The most significant difference in license scope is the treatment of patent rights. BY-SA expressly reserves patent rights to the licensor, while GPLv3 expressly includes a patent grant from each contributor.

Because patent rights are expressly excluded from BY-SA, there is no reliable claim of an implied license to do things with a BY-SA licensed work that implicate patent rights. From a compatibility perspective, this means that when a BY-SA work is adapted into a GPL-licensed project, downstream users of the project would not have patent rights to the BY-SA work. (Although the GPL includes a patent license, the scope of rights licensed by the BY-SA licensor cannot be expanded because an adapter applies the GPL, just as it is not expanded when an adapter applies a later version of BY-SA that licenses more rights than the original.)

This creates the possibility that a downstream user of a GPL project will mistakenly assume that they do not have to consider patent rights even though a BY-SA work is adapted into the project. However, we do not feel this is should prevent one-way compatibility because it is largely an academic problem, given how rarely BY-SA works are subject to patents that would be implicated by simply reproducing or adapting the content.

Effective technological measures

BY-SA prohibits application of ETMs by licensees entirely if those measures would prevent others from exercising their rights under the license. In contrast, the GPL does not explicitly prohibit application of DRM and other ETMs. Instead, it addresses any potential lockdown of licensed works by requiring distribution of source code in a modifiable form.

This creates a risk that BY-SA works adapted into GPL-licensed projects could be subject to DRM applied by downstream users who look only at the GPL requirements. However, we feel this risk is adequately neutralized by the GPL requirement to provide source.

Source

The GPL requires that works be distributed with source or that source be made available (with “source” being the preferred form for making modifications to the work). BY-SA does not impose a similar requirement. Instead, BY-SA licensors are free to distribute their works in any format, whether or not modifiable.

With one-way compatibility to the GPL, no new obligations are imposed under the BY-SA license, either upon the original licensor or any downstream adapter who wishes to license their contributions under the GPL instead of BY-SA. However, those who adapt BY-SA works and choose to license their contributions under the GPL do, however, still have to comply with the GPL obligation to distribute or make available the work in the preferred form for making modifications. If a particular adapter cannot do this because she never received modifiable format from the BY-SA licensor and/or cannot convert the content to modifiable format, then that person may not take advantage of the one-way compatibility declaration and use the GPL.

License termination

Both licenses terminate automatically upon breach. BY-SA is reinstated automatically if the breach is cured within 30 days of discovery. GPLv3 is reinstated for first-time violators who cure within 30 days of getting notice of the violation from the copyright holder, and may be reinstated after other violations if it has been corrected for 60 days without the licensor's objection. These differences make it so one could technically have rights under the GPLv3 reinstated but not under BY-SA in situations where both licenses apply (i.e. when BY-SA content is adapted and integrated into a GPL-licensed project).^[1] As a practical matter, licensors and licensees in both communities typically deal with license violations outside the strict letter of the license, so we feel this is unlikely to be a real world obstacle to compatibility.

Option to comply with later versions

GPLv3 gives licensees the option to comply with a later version of the GPL if the licensor has so specified, or to use *any* version of the GPL if no version number was specified, regardless of whether the work has been adapted. BY-SA allows licensees to comply with the conditions of future versions of BY-SA, but only if that version was applied to an adaptation of the work. Because only version 3 of the GPL is an option for compatibility at this time, reusers that adapt BY-SA content into GPL-licensed projects are only able to use GPLv3 unless and until other GPL versions are made compatible. With solid education for both communities and encouragement of clear marking by licensors, we do not feel this is an obstacle to compatibility.

Related policy notes

Creative Commons consulted extensively with the steward of the GPL v.3 during the 4.0 versioning process, as well as throughout the compatibility process on the policy matters described above. The final determination and policy statements above reflect the best interpretations by both stewards of their respective licenses.

Considerations for adapters applying the GPLv3

Both because of the limited one-way nature of compatibility and because GPLv3 is designed for software, there are a few particular considerations to take into account before applying the GPLv3 as the adapter’s license when adapting BY-SA works.

• This one-way compatibility mechanism with GPLv3 is not for general use. It was designed to help solve a specific problem for those working in niche areas where content is melded with code. Please take advantage of it only when you are adapting BY-SA works into GPLv3 software in ways that make it difficult or impossible for downstream users to distinguish the content from code.

• BY-SA does not include a patent license. Do not apply the GPLv3 if you have any reason to suspect that any patent rights held by the original BY-SA licensor could pose a problem for downstream users.

• BY-SA works may not be available in the preferred form for making modifications. Do not apply the GPLv3 if you cannot comply with the source requirement in the GPL.

• This compatibility determination only applies to GPL version 3. You must specify version 3 of the GPL when redistributing a GPL project into which BY-SA content is adapted.

Notes