Interaction and interoperability between Creative Commons and open source licences

I N T E R A C T I O N A N D I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y
B E T W E E N C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S A N D
O P E N S O U R C E L I C E N C E S
D R A N D R E S G U A D A M U Z
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S U S S E X

S P E C T R U M O F R I G H T S

H U M A N - R E A D A B L E  
C O M M O N S D E E D
L AW Y E R -
R E A D A B L E  
L E G A L C O D E
M A C H I N E -
R E A D A B L E  
D I G I TA L C O D E
< A R E L = " L I C E N S E "
H R E F = " H T T P : / /
C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S . O R G /
L I C E N S E S / B Y- S A /
3 . 0 / " > < I M G A LT = " C R E AT I V E
C O M M O N S L I C E N S E "
S T Y L E = " B O R D E R - W I D T H : 0 "
S R C = " H T T P : / /
I . C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S . O R G /
L / B Y- S A / 3 . 0 / 8 8 X 3 1 . P N G " /
> < / A > < B R / > T H I S W O R K I S
L I C E N S E D U N D E R A < A
R E L = " L I C E N S E "
H R E F = " H T T P : / /
C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S . O R G /
L I C E N S E S / B Y- S A /
3 . 0 / " > C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S
AT T R I B U T I O N - S H A R E A L I K E
3 . 0 U N P O RT E D L I C E N S E < /
A > .

C R E AT I V E C O M M O N S
Attribution: Every CC licenses allows the world to copy and distribute a
work provided that the licensee credits the creator/licensor.
The author may include these other elements:
NonCommercial: licensees can use the work for non-commercial purposes.
No Derivatives: the work cannot be modified.
ShareAlike: the work can be copied, modified and distributed if the author
releases the derivative under the same license.

B Y A T T R I B U T I O N
B Y - N C A T T R I B U T I O N - N O N C O M M E R C I A L
B Y - S A A T T R I B U T I O N - S H A R E A L I K E
B Y - N D A T T R I B U T I O N - N O D E R I V A T I V E S
B Y - N C - S A A T T R I B U T I O N - N O N C O M M E R C I A L -
S H A R E A L I K E
B Y - N C - N D A T T R I B U T I O N - N O N C O M M E R C I A L -
N O D E R I V A T I V E S
L I C E N C E S

C C 0
• Relatively new licence that
works both as a dedication to
the public domain, and as a
full licence where it’s not
permitted to relinquish
copyright.
• You can’t always renounce
your copyright.

C C I G O
L I C E N C E
• Version 3.0 Inter-
governmental
Organisation Port
• Licence designed for
IGOs: WIPO, World Bank,
UNESCO, OECD, etc.
• Same as other 3.0 licences,
but with added arbitration
clause.

T O O M A N Y
L I C E N C E S !
• v1 had 6 unported licences
and 2 ports (Finland and
Israel). 18 licences.
• v2 had 9 ports = 60 licences.
• v2.1 and 2.5 had 1 port
each.
• By 3.0, I counted 267 ported
CC licences, and stopped
counting.

C C 4 . 0 C H A N G E S T H E G A M E
• Unprecedented consultation with affiliates around the
world during 2-year drafting process
• Terminology more suitable for international use
• Analysed and addressed countless jurisdiction-specific
legal issues
• Introducing official language translations

T H E O P E N
S O U R C E
L I C E N C E
E N V I R O N M E N T

R O S E N ’ S C L A S S I F I C AT I O N
• Academic licenses: Academic licenses place no
requirements whatsoever on the license user.
• Reciprocal licenses: Require some form of reciprocity,
usually that any derivatives of the software be released
under the same license.
• Standard licenses: They seek to create a base standard of
software and documentation.
• Content licenses: Protect non-software elements, such as
pictures and music.

T O P L I C E N C E S
L I C E N S E P E R C E N T G P L
C O M PAT I B L E
G P L / LG P L
( 2
&
3 ) 4 5 % Y E S
N E W
B S D
/
M I T 2 2 % Y E S
A PA C H E
L I C E N S E 1 5 % Y E S
( G P L 3
O N LY )
A R T I S T I C
L I C E N S E
( P E R L ) 5 % Y E S
( A L
V 2
O N LY )
M I C RO S O F T
P U B L I C
L I C E N S E
( M S -‐ P L ) 2 % N O
EC L I P S E
P U B L I C
L I C E N S E
( E P L ) 2 % N O
C O D E
P R OJ EC T
O P E N
L I C E N S E 1 % N O
M OZ I L L A
P U B L I C
L I C E N S E
( M P L ) ~ 1 % N O
( U N L E S S
S P EC I F I E D )
Z L I B / L I B P N G
L I C E N S E < 1 % Y E S

C O M PAT I B I L I T Y C H A R T

C C I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y

E V E N C C L I C E N C E S A R E
I N C O M PAT I B L E W I T H O N E A N O T H E R

C C A N D G P L
• Big debate in the community.
• Historically, many FLOSS members strongly support
CC. Lessig sat on FSF board, etc.
• FLOSS proponents usually use CC for everything that
is not software.
• Compatibility talks ongoing.

D O W E N E E D C O M PAT I B I L I T Y ?
C A S E S T U D I E S F R O M U S E R S
• GPL game with CC content (music, images, textures, sound,
animations).
• “There is Battle for Wesnoth¹ with GPL licensed text and artwork, and
Ryzoom² with cc by-sa assets.”
• “Another example for this problem becomes visible in the simplest of
games: The text adventures in scripting languages. An example is the
branching story in the TextRPG. Since the code imports GPL libraries, it
has to be licensed under GPL. If the text were under cc by-sa, then it
would have to be put into a separate file and the code would have to
get a full templating system, which makes it impossible to just use the
capabilities of the scripting language and the program state in the text
(otherwise it would have intimate data communication again).”

S TAT E O F T H E P R O C E S S
• “Currently, developers are sometimes reluctant to
integrate BY-SA content into GPL projects because of
uncertainty about how the two licenses work together.
Eliminating obstacles to remix between licenses so
similar in aim and spirit is precisely what the
compatibility mechanism in BY-SA was designed to
do.”
• Conversations since Feb 2015.

I N C O M PAT I B I L I T Y 1 : AT T R I B U T I O N
C C - B Y 4 . 0 G P L 3
AT T R I B U T I O N
E L E M E N T S
1. C R E AT O R A N D
AT T R I B U T I O N
PA R T I E S ;
2. C O P Y R I G H T N O T I C E ;
3. L I C E N S E N O T I C E
4. D I S C L A I M E R N O T I C E ;
5. U R I O R L I N K T O T H E
L I C E N S E D M AT E R I A L ;
6. L I N K T O L I C E N S E
1. C O P Y R I G H T N O T I C E
2. L I C E N S E N O T I C E S
A N D A N Y N O T I C E O F
A D D I T I O N A L T E R M S
3. N O T I C E S A B O U T
L A C K O F WA R R A N T Y
4. C O P Y O F T H E
L I C E N S E

I N C O M PAT I B I L I T Y 2 : T P M
• BY-SA prohibits application of DRM 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. Instead, it addresses any potential
lockdown of licensed works by requiring distribution of
source code in a modifiable form. In the software
context, this is sufficient to make DRM moot because a
reuser in possession of the source code may freely
modify and redistribute the licensed work.

C C - B Y I S
C O M PAT I B L E
• “This is a non-copyleft free
license that is good for art
and entertainment works,
and educational works. It is
compatible with all
versions of the GNU GPL;
however, it is not
recommended for use on
software.”

C C C A S E S
• Curry v. Audax (Netherlands)
• Pontevedra ruling (Spain)
• Case 09-1684-A (Belgium)
• Avi Re'uveni v. Mapa inc. (Israel)
• Gerlach v die-rechte.info (Germany)

T H A N K S
@ T E C H N O L L A M A

Interaction and interoperability between Creative Commons and open source licences

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Interaction and interoperability between Creative Commons and open source licences

More from Andres Guadamuz

Recently uploaded

Interaction and interoperability between Creative Commons and open source licences