On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 21:24:45 +0200 Roberto wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:04:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > The reason is that the one-way compatibility mechanism of CC-by-sa v4.0
> > is not exceptionally clear, and, without that compatibility, the
> > CC-by-sa v4.0 license itself has a number of controversial clauses
> > (non-free, in my own personal opinion).
> CC-BY 4.0 (without SA) may be better than CC-BY-SA in that case,
> according to the FSF it's compatible and accepted as a free license (for
> content which is not a program).

Actually, although the FSF [claims] that CC-by v4.0 is compatible with
the GNU GPL, it does not explain how the restrictions found in CC-by
v4.0 can be reconciled with the GNU GPL.

[claims]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby>

I asked the FSF to publish a reasoned analysis on this.
I did so back in 2015, but nothing has been disclosed yet (as far as I
know).   :-(

I am personally *not* convinced that CC-by v4.0 is GPL-compatible.
Please note that the CC-by v4.0 has no explicit compatibility clause
(contrary to CC-by-sa v4.0, which has a one-way compatibility

 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgp5p5qo30MmG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to