W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Apologies

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:38:37 -0400
Message-ID: <51E5770D.8080009@intertwingly.net>
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 07/16/2013 09:55 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 01:43 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I didn't realize I said to Robin that CC-BY was okay. I should have
>> checked with a lawyer or at least the CC FAQ before saying anything of
>> the sort. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby makes it
>> pretty clear why it's not acceptable to me. My apologies for making it
>> appear otherwise.
>
> Hi Anne,
>
> The GNU license list says only that the two licenses are not compatible,
> meaning one can't simply re-license CC-BY material under GPL. It doesn't
> say that both aren't usable in the same manner; I think they are.
>
> I understand the GPL incompatibility to be that CC-BY does not permit
> sub-licensing. However, W3C in its Process and document license commits
> to making technical reports available free of charge to the general
> public under its document license in perpetuity. [1] Therefore, every
> would-be user of the code gets a license directly from W3C, and does not
> need a sub-license.
>
> Does this help?

I believe that the relevant use cases are #5 and #6 as listed here:

http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#usecases

At the moment, the FSF is not alone in declaring CC-BY incompatible with 
their license, the Mozilla Foundation has come to a similar conclusion:

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html

The ASF hasn't concluded its analysis, but seems likely to agree:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167

Some of the clauses in the CC-BY license cause trouble not only for 
"Free" Software Vendors, but commercial/proprietary vendors alike. 
Examples:

  * You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the
terms of this License or the ability of a recipient of the Work to
exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the
License.

  * You may not sublicense the Work.

  * You may not impose any 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.

Finally, I'll note that the authors of the CC-BY license themselves 
don't recommend this license for software:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F

> --Wendy
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#dissemination
>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> --
>> http://annevankesteren.nl/

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 16:39:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:21 UTC