Legal Discuss
  1. Legal Discuss
  2. LEGAL-96

Categorise Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported

    Details

    • Type: Task Task
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          Craig L Russell added a comment - - edited

          > I agree CC-BY-3.0 seems like a category A license.

          Update 3-Aug-2011: Upon reading more about the license, the restrictions that are imposed exclude it from consideration as a Category A license.

          Show
          Craig L Russell added a comment - - edited > I agree CC-BY-3.0 seems like a category A license. Update 3-Aug-2011: Upon reading more about the license, the restrictions that are imposed exclude it from consideration as a Category A license.
          Hide
          Shane Curcuru added a comment -

          Note that this question has a significant impact on the Apache OpenOffice podling. which wishes to distribute previously dual-licensed GPL/CC-BY3 docs. I'd like to see counsel or VP, Legal give a +1 on this one.

          http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201108.mbox/%3C1312334248.2110.52.camel@jean-laptop15%3E

          Show
          Shane Curcuru added a comment - Note that this question has a significant impact on the Apache OpenOffice podling. which wishes to distribute previously dual-licensed GPL/CC-BY3 docs. I'd like to see counsel or VP, Legal give a +1 on this one. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201108.mbox/%3C1312334248.2110.52.camel@jean-laptop15%3E
          Hide
          Sam Ruby added a comment -

          > I'd like to see counsel or VP, Legal give a +1 on this one

          Fine: +1

          Now a brain dump on this topic:

          • First, this isn't a question for counsel (is this license illegal or one that we can't comply with? I don't see any reason to believe so), but rather one of policy (do we WANT to allow this).
          • Second, you place entirely too much importance on the title of VP in questions such as these. This is a routine question which can be answered via lazy consensus and then any member of Legal Affairs can update the site with the results. I am actively monitoring, and will intercede when necessary, but I prefer to cultivate a community over becoming a bottleneck.
          • Next, dual license is not an issue. That's the licensor giving us a choice. In such cases, we simply make the choice that works for us.
          • Finally, as to the license itself, we have already approved a substantially similar license. Since this is a brain dump, I actually do have a concern with the license. It specifies "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", which effectively means that may contains conditions that are specified outside of the license. These conditions could be problematic. More often, however, the real problem is that these conditions are never stated. I'll also note that our license's requirements in 4.1 and 4.4 operationally are equivalent to requiring attribution. In any case, I see no reason to say no based on the fact that there could be problems when the problems have proven to be rare and unlikely. In the event of an actual problem, we can certainly revisit this.
          Show
          Sam Ruby added a comment - > I'd like to see counsel or VP, Legal give a +1 on this one Fine: +1 Now a brain dump on this topic: First, this isn't a question for counsel (is this license illegal or one that we can't comply with? I don't see any reason to believe so), but rather one of policy (do we WANT to allow this). Second, you place entirely too much importance on the title of VP in questions such as these. This is a routine question which can be answered via lazy consensus and then any member of Legal Affairs can update the site with the results. I am actively monitoring, and will intercede when necessary, but I prefer to cultivate a community over becoming a bottleneck. Next, dual license is not an issue. That's the licensor giving us a choice. In such cases, we simply make the choice that works for us. Finally, as to the license itself, we have already approved a substantially similar license. Since this is a brain dump, I actually do have a concern with the license. It specifies "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", which effectively means that may contains conditions that are specified outside of the license. These conditions could be problematic. More often, however, the real problem is that these conditions are never stated. I'll also note that our license's requirements in 4.1 and 4.4 operationally are equivalent to requiring attribution. In any case, I see no reason to say no based on the fact that there could be problems when the problems have proven to be rare and unlikely. In the event of an actual problem, we can certainly revisit this.
          Hide
          Luis added a comment -

          How does CC's anti-DRM language fit into Apache license policies?

          [Specifically:

          "When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License."]

          Show
          Luis added a comment - How does CC's anti-DRM language fit into Apache license policies? [Specifically: "When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License."]
          Hide
          Sam Ruby added a comment -

          > How does CC's anti-DRM language fit into Apache license policies?

          Darn good question. What would you propose?

          One possibility would be treating this somewhat like Category B?

          Show
          Sam Ruby added a comment - > How does CC's anti-DRM language fit into Apache license policies? Darn good question. What would you propose? One possibility would be treating this somewhat like Category B?
          Hide
          Luis added a comment -

          I don't have a proposal; leaving aside the IAALBINYL issue, I'm genuinely unfamiliar with Apache policies on the Category A/B/X licenses so couldn't give a good answer.

          One factor that might be worth considering is that many people these days use Apache-originated works in embedded systems that might qualify as or incorporate effective technological measures, and their expectations might be that they can use Apache-originated works without such restrictions. (Whether or not Apache wants to take that factor into account when assessing this question is entirely up to Apache.)

          Show
          Luis added a comment - I don't have a proposal; leaving aside the IAALBINYL issue, I'm genuinely unfamiliar with Apache policies on the Category A/B/X licenses so couldn't give a good answer. One factor that might be worth considering is that many people these days use Apache-originated works in embedded systems that might qualify as or incorporate effective technological measures, and their expectations might be that they can use Apache-originated works without such restrictions. (Whether or not Apache wants to take that factor into account when assessing this question is entirely up to Apache.)

            People

            • Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              Robert Burrell Donkin
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:

                Development