Open Source

31336 readers

202 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Question: Better Alternative than CC BY SA (self.opensource)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by tengkuizdihar to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm interested in copyright licenses, especially open source/creative commons. It's definitely a rabbit hole to sink into. Right now I'm reading up on a case https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Drauglis_v._Kappa_Map_Group,_LLC. It basically said, a CC-BY-SA will not be applied to a "collective work", where your art/asset are used in a "compilation" of some sort. Like a photograph in an album, the photograph can't be considered "derivative work" as long as it's not being modified.

One question arises, is there a CC-BY-SA with better coverage which also includes collective works?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's better for OP to explain, but from what I read they don't mind it being used in a collective work, but they want to make sure that collective work will also be CC-BY-SA. What from what they read it is no guarantee.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So you mean like GPL to enforce same license when reused? I don't think anyone using works licensed as CC-BY-SA is allowed to relicense it under a different license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

CC BY-SA 4.0 is one way compatible with GPLv3.

It does mean that anything released under older CC SA licenses aren't, so they can't be used in GPL projects. And MIT isn't compatible at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Put simply this means you now have permission to adapt another licensor’s work under CC BY-SA 4.0 and release your contributions to the adaptation under GPLv3 (while the adaptation relies on both licenses, a reuser of the combined and remixed work need only look to the conditions of GPLv3 to satisfy the attribution and ShareAlike conditions of BY-SA 4.0).

Wow I read that. And it means one can take the CC-BY-SA 4.0 work and relicense it as GPLv3. Its' not just about being compatible in a project, it literally means re-licensing is allowed. But that is only for the adapted work. Meaning if you change something from his work, you are able to release your work as both licenses. While the original untouched work is still CC-BY-SA 4.0 only. So a collection has no rights to make changes to its original license.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It means a GPLv3 project can use something licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0 by converting it to GPLv3, as is required. E.g using a CC BY-SA photograph as a background or a splash image in a program.
And while you technically can't take the original, yeah, practically everything except "here is the image file alone in a folder" counts as modifying and a derivative work. Resize it, crop it, change a .png to a .jpg etc - all modify the original work.