discuss: Thread: Three recent threads on licensing

Below the cut are two of my postings to a very recent thread on the
Linux Users of Victoria's (NSW, Australia) miscellaneous discussion
mailing list, about derivative works and about licence conflict (and
lack of same).

Also of possible interest:

http://linuxgazette.net/155/misc/lg/license_question.html
   (Thread in which prospective author asks if _Linux Gazette_ is willing 
   to accept an article under licensing that withholds commercial rights.  
   Also, the merits of Open Publication License v. 1.0 with no options, 
   used as _Linux Gazette's_ standard licence, are considered.)

http://linuxgazette.net/155/misc/lg/linux_sendmail_imap_and_mobile_phone_access.html
   (Another thread where the "What licences are _actually_ deemed
   DFSG-free by the Debian Project?" question is discussed.)

----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen ####@####.#### -----

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:53:17 -0700
From: Rick Moen ####@####.####
To: ####@####.####
Subject: Re: Creative Commons and GPL

Quoting Takis Diakoumis ####@####.####

> i also found this which was interesting:
> http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
> 
> ...especially point 6. the thing is though that i'm not [aiming] to
> release under CC - i just happen to have some pieces that themselves
> were released under CC. 

I still haven't heard what your alleged compatibility problem is.
Unless someone intends to create a derivative work that comprises
elements available only under GPL with elements under a CC licence,
there _is_ no problem.  That would be "mere aggregation" to borrow GPL's 
term -- e.g., inclusion of CC documentation alongside GPLed software.

If you own copyright over (at least) one of the two works in question,
and there actually _is_ a conflict within an actual derivative work,
then you can cure licence conflicts by appending a licence _exception_
(e.g., "work foo may be used under the terms of GPLv2 or, at the
recipient's option, any later version, with the additional permission
that foo may be combined with work bar").


> your point on the debian test is also valid.

The Debian Project has made no ruling on the two CC licences that are
obviously, on their face, DFSG-free (CC BY-SA and CC BY -- especially
the current 3.0 revisions).  The Wikpedia-referenced "debian-legal
summary" by my friend Evan Prodromou about the 2.0 revisions of those
licences is, frankly, bullshit, and the cited objections are pretty much
obviously absurd.

Even if it were the case that the _public, unmoderated mailing list_
debian-legal somehow automatically voiced the institutional view of the
Debian Project, which it does not, it would not follow that claims by
any random member of that mailing list speak for the Project.

If you examine Debian's Policy document and official developer docs, you
find that package maintainers are urged to _consult_ with the
debian-legal mailing list, if they have licence concerns.  Not a single
line of any of Debian's governing documentation requires or even faintly
suggests that anyone at all on debian-legal must be _believed_, for the
obvious reason that boneheads, the deluded, and those devoid of any
understanding of copyright and other relevant bodies of law can and do
subscribe to it.

What _can_ speak definitively for the Debian Project on licensing
matters is any relevant General Resolution that passes (such as the one
that said that GFDL works with invariant sections are non-free), or
relevant rulings by the Debian Project leader, his/her deputies, or the
Technical Committee.  Above and beyond that, the matter is literally in
the hands of the individual Debian package maintainers, plus those of
the ftp masters (who are physically able to refuse particular uploads,
if sufficiently disaffected).

> the above doc also has some notes about that - i think debian would at
> best possibly conclude that the whole app was 'non-free'.

I personally think that's farfetched -- and I think my friend Evan has a
lot of people he's mislead.  The same can, IMO, be said for quite a few
other frequently-cited members of the debian-legal mailing list.
(Naturally, the most dogmatically critical posters are the most often
quoted.  I suggest in particular comparing their application of the
'Desert Island Test" and "Dissident Test", which are their invention and
have no standing in the Debian Project, with the actual Debian Free
Software Guidelines that they characteristically ignore.)

Personally, I strongly favour CC's BY-SA 3.0 licence by preference for
most non-software works that I wish to release under a free, copyleft
licence.  I think there are no better alternatives for that purpose.

----- End forwarded message -----
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen ####@####.#### -----

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 00:14:01 -0700
From: Rick Moen ####@####.####
To: ####@####.####
Subject: Re: Creative Commons and GPL

Quoting Takis Diakoumis ####@####.####

> i wasn't really sure if there was a compatability problem or indeed if
> that was or should have been my question :)
> 
> in short, i think i was wondering whether distributing software under
> GPL, was it also ok to have CC icons - which could very well be a duh! -
> its a separate license which is included as well and thats all.

I cannot imagine a situation where CC-whatever[1] icons _could_ be
reasonably considered a derivative work of GPLed software with which you 
bundle them.  Therefore, there would be no licence incompatibility.  In
other words, what you've described is a classic example of "mere
aggregation", in which licence clashes are irrelevant because there is
no single copyright-covered property concerning which recipients must
satisfy both licences at the same time.

[1] It's not really useful to speak of a work being under "CC"
licensing, because the half-dozen-odd Creative Commons licences are
highly diverse:  2/3 of them don't even try to be free licences, but
rather are by design proprietary.

----- End forwarded message -----