What's new in Creative Commons 4.0
creativecommons.org
creativecommons.org
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.
If a copy or a derivative work of the licensed material is to be included in a piece of software under the General Public License or other strong copyleft license, then it must be licensed under that license for compliance.
I don't speak legalese, so I'm sure that text is full of holes and possible misinterpretations, but surely a group of experts could come up with something legally viable in that spirit.
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.
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.
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.
This is rubbish.
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." (GPL v3 section 10)
"If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term." (GPL v3 section 7)
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." (GPL v2 section 6)
So when the GPLv2 says that "You may not impose...", that only applies to someone who is re-distributing the work, not to the original distributer.
The GPLv3 is different, due to section 7, since the licenser can't remove that line (the GPL itself is not Free to modify).
This is not surprising, since the sorts of restrictions mentioned in this thread violate "freedom 0" of the Free Software Definition.
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."
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.
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.
It's a little bit crazy to say "Yeah, this license gives you total freedom to reuse this work however you want without asking permission, except when the original author doesn't like the result". Where do you draw the line? It defeats the purpose of the license.
You can make a parallel with FOSS, your software could be used to run nuclear missiles, a pedophilia network or other nasty things. I don't like it quite a bit, but the other option is a slippery slope in my opinion.
The courts might have given the copyright holder a hard time, but the license was setup such that in the documentation you could add restrictions.
Because this wasn't specifically blocked by 3.0, this is a new restriction because it is explicit in this license.
GPLv3 added two new concept.
1#, you may not give people software under false pretense, and then later go sue them for patents.
2#, you may not work around the license with the use of technical restrictions. The rights provided in the license to users should not be limited by legal (gplv2), and gplv3 simply adds same rule to cover identical restrictions from technical means.
What has either to do with commercial use?
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