What's new in Creative Commons 4.0

by cstuder • 13 years ago

90 31 13 years ago

Looks like GPL compatibility was not included after all?

The compatibility would not be part of the license in any case. Some licenses could be considered compatible with GPL (specifically the CC BY SA). However, CC generally suggests that the licenses are used for non-software creations.

Shamanmuni3• 13 years ago

I think the problem is that both GPL and CC-BY-SA require you to license derivative works with that same license. And sometimes it's not easy to tell if something is or isn't software in a clear way.

For example, if you modify an image of a map licensed with CC-BY-SA for it to be used in a level of a game licensed with GPL, which license should you use for the derivative work? Is it data, code or both at the same time? What's the status of an image or a sound made with a script (think about fractals, for example)?

Both licenses are "viral" and require you to use that and not the other. You are on a deadlock.

drakaal7• 13 years ago

Basically unusable.

If you had put in the terms of your OpenSource Image Hosting platform that users couldn't use the software to host violent or simulated violent content, that restriction is removed by CC 4.0.

Conversely you can now require that anyone who uses your Image Hosting Platform gives you the rights to any data about users of that platform. This will probably only hold in Europe since in the US data is pretty hard to copyright.

It also now allows that if you are a Model in an image that is shared as Creative commons that if someone wants to make modification to that image to make it look like you are being Raped, or raping someone else that is permissible, and you can only say all derivative works are allowed, or none are allowed.

This is a major step backwards.

JohnTHaller2• 13 years ago

No accepted open source licenses (GPL, BSD, MIT, etc) permit restrictions on use based on content. If they did, they would not be OSI approved. CC licensing that is open is based on the same open model.

It would be nearly impossible to structure a license with every possible scenario the content owner could object to. And allowing the content owner to manually insert their own restriction language is fraught with issues: is it written in a way to be legally enforceable, what if the owner misses something like prohibits sexual/violent act and is later upset when it is used another, are they open to interpretation in a different culture/group that uses a different definition of violence or a sexual act, etc.

While wanting to ensure your images are not used for purposes you object to is a valid concern, if it is a concern for a particular image, that image should not be CC licensed with modifications permitted.

drakaal7• 13 years ago

Actually GPL and MIT do. I don't know on BSD.

You can release software on GPL that is free to an industry/market but is pay for other markets or not available in those markets.

You can even under GPL release software with a restriction that it can not be used by competitors. So if you want to release something that does Missile Tracking, but someone wants to use it to do head tracking that is ok.

CC 4.0 explicitly has language preventing this, where as 3.0 didn't have explicit language so even if it was the intent of the license it wasn't spelled out so you could do such things.

jstalin2• 13 years ago

From my understanding, 3.0 was the same:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

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

asb• 13 years ago

If you had put in the terms of your OpenSource Image Hosting platform that users couldn't use the software to host violent or simulated violent content, that restriction is removed by CC 4.0.

I don't immediately see where CC 4.0 does this, but if it does I view it as a good thing. If you add extra terms on top of a CC license it is no longer a CC license and you should not label it as such.

Conversely you can now require that anyone who uses your Image Hosting Platform gives you the rights to any data about users of that platform. This will probably only hold in Europe since in the US data is pretty hard to copyright.

Wait, what? Is this some weird interpretation of the new clarifications on database rights? The Creative Commons license has nothing to do with data you hold privately.

It also now allows that if you are a Model in an image that is shared as Creative commons that if someone wants to make modification to that image to make it look like you are being Raped, or raping someone else that is permissible, and you can only say all derivative works are allowed, or none are allowed.

As long as the person who put the work under the CC license was in a position to sign over the model's moral rights. It's meant to be an easy to understand and use license, the fact that allowing derivative works is a binary decision is a good thing in my view.

drakaal7• 13 years ago

Waive of moral rights. It was hinted in 3 but is now explicit.

As written you can now own data created by your software used by others. The intent was likely that you could license data as CC some rights reserved, but in the process it appears that you can now claim rights to data created by the software you are licensing.

Most licenses for Personality or likeness of a human allow restrictions on the way that image is to be used. I can't take a picture of your mom, and then have it be used in an ad that implies she has STD's. With good reason. If I posed a model to look like she was basting a turkey for thanksgiving, and then modded the image to be part of a pornographic image she would now be a porn star rather than a cooking personality. She would have no problem being in a derivative work that added titling or changed the color of the walls, or featured a different brand oven, but probably wouldn't be ok if the image was modded to look like she was inserting a turkey baster in to a persons rectum.

eCa• 13 years ago

No matter how you interpret 4.0 you are still allowed to explicitly license your work under CC 3.0. Other authors may very well feel differently.

The moral-ness of the JSON license [0] has caused some discussion [1] as to whether or not it actually is an open source license.

If your second example is true then that is the only of those three examples that would worry me (from a generic licensing standpoint).

[0] http://www.json.org/license.html

[1] https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=json+license+problem

jstalin2• 13 years ago

Looks like they significantly cleaned up the warranty disclaimer and fixed the limitation of damages, which likely would have been a problem in US courts.

nkurz• 13 years ago

Is there case law on disclaimers of warranty for open source software? In particular, has anyone been successfully sued for an providing free software that was not fit for a particular purpose? I was recently hoping that these disclaimers were legal paranoia, but I have no actual knowledge.

What's new in Creative Commons 4.0

Related Stories