Hacker News Reader

Comment by zokier | Hacker News Reader

The original SICP text seems to licensed with CC-BY-SA, and this PDF version has GPL license slapped on it. Is that legal? GPL is more restrictive than the original license after all.

View on HN

AFAIK, a file is not coverered under the GPL unless it sports a notice that says so.

Putting the GPL in a directory doesn't render its content covered by the license.

In this case, there's no indication in the files that they are covered by anything.

The README clearly states that the texi source is CC licensed, though.

So, even if the repository owner intended to release this under the GPL, his actions are void.

Probably, I'd expect. Derivative works under more restrictive licenses are usually fine (as long as this isn't explicitly disallowed) - it's making a derivative work under a less restrictive license where you're more likely to run into issues.

It is explicitly disallowed by the share-alike clause.

I need an explanation for this. I don't read the GPL as incompatible with CC-BY-SA. However, IANAL, so help a brother out?

EDIT: Please state where in the legalese of the CC-BY-SA license that such would be disallowed.

From the CC-BY-SA license[1]: "Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." The GPL is probably considered sufficiently dissimilar as to make relicensing under it illegal, but IANAL either, so who knows.

[1]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

"...probably considered sufficiently dissimilar..."

Probably dissimilar in what way? I see them as legally similar. The only difference I see is GPL says 'this License" where CC-BY-SA says 'same or similar license.' GPL looks similar, ergo, GPL is fine.

This is not to say that literary works should be distributed under the GPL- the GPL is intended for computer programs. Perhaps the creator of this repository misunderstands this. Perhaps the repo contains computer code that performs the transformation and his intent is to place the computer code under GPL.

Regardless of these other issues, I still do not see a fundamental difference that prevents a derivative of a CC-BY-SA work being placed under GPL.

Both licenses say "You can reproduce subject to these few restrictions, one of which is that you can't add any other restrictions to derivative works", but the "these few restrictions" is slightly different between the two licences.

The FSF also thinks they're incompatible: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Ah, I stand corrected. Thank you!

The copy of the GPL in that folder might be there for the sake of texinfo.tex.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com