Hacker News Reader

Comment by drakaal | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.

The rights you are describing are not moral rights. Moral rights belong to the artist, the photographer for example. He can say whether his work is being used in a way to hurt his honor or reputation. The rights of the person involved in the picture are called privacy and publicity rights which can be waived by the Licensor as long as he has obtained them from the original person exposed in the picture. See this case for example: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Chang_v._Virgin_Mobile

Yes I combined two changes in the same comment for brevity. You also waive all of the personalities rights with this new version.

If you have them. The rights are originally held by the third person, not the photographer (to keep your example). If that person has licensed them to the Licensor/photographer, then they will be considered waived. In any other case, the third person holds them and can have a valid argument.

If you want to have control about how your creative works are reused, then you should choose to stay with plain-old Copyright and grant (or deny) authorizations as requested.

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.

GPL and MIT both allow you to put any restriction you want in the license. "Free for use to academia and by organizations which are working for the betterment of Animals"

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.

You cannot add additional restrictions to GPLed works, they are void. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary

Sorry that was a change from V2 of GPL. I had forgotten that GPL changed in v3. I try to avoid V3 because several bad things came from that change. The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them.

> The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them.

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?

That is completely incorrect. If a piece of software is licensed under the GPL or the MIT, you have the right to use it for any purpose. If it didn't, it wouldn't meet the free software definition, nor the open source definition.

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.

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.

How do you come to this conclusion?

This is rubbish.

I think you have some misconceptions about the GPL.

"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)

But technically, the GPL - and in particular those terms - don't apply to the licenser/copyright holder, only to the licensee.

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).

You are correct. A lot of stuff is licensed under v2 since Linus didn't like v3 with good reason.

A copyright owner can always release the same software under a different license. They just can't call it or expand upon the gplv3 license itself.

Even with GPLv2, adding additional restrictions effectively creates a new license -- one that is incompatible with the original GNU GPL, and for which GNU/FSF will not permit you to use the GNU GPL name or preamble. (This is covered in the GPL FAQ.)

This is not surprising, since the sorts of restrictions mentioned in this thread violate "freedom 0" of the Free Software Definition.

The GPL and MIT licenses permit neither market nor competitor exclusions. The GPL explicitly prohibits additional restrictions not spelled out in the license. If you add additional restrictions to the MIT/BSD license, then it is no longer MIT/BSD nor open source as spelled out by the OSI. It's just another proprietary license with the source code available.

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

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."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com