Hacker News Reader

Comment by IvarTJ | Hacker News Reader

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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com