On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:46:20 +0200 hermann meyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 16.06.2013 14:10, schrieb Nils Gey: > > On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:04:03 +0200 > > hermann meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Am 15.06.2013 19:09, schrieb hermann meyer: > >>> Am 15.06.2013 18:38, schrieb Nils Gey: > >>>> On Sat Jun 15 18:25:29 2013 hermann meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Am 15.06.2013 17:47, schrieb Nils Gey: > >>>>>> On Sat Jun 15 17:01:05 2013 hermann meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Did anyone here know if the GPL+ v2.0 /v3.0 is compatible with the > >>>>>>> CC-BY v3.0 (unported) > >>>>>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I only found here > >>>>>>> http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Creative_Commons_Attribution_Share-Alike_.28CC-BY-SA.29_v3.0 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> that the CC-BY-SA v3.0 is compatible, but no mention of the CC-BY > >>>>>>> v3.0 My understanding is that the CC-BY v3.0 has less restrictions > >>>>>>> then the CC-BY-SA version, but I'm a bit unsure. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Background: I would include some work which is under the CC-BY v3.0 > >>>>>>> to my project, which is under the GPL+ v2.0 (or later). I wouldn't > >>>>>>> violate the DFSG, so I would make sure there is no issue at all when > >>>>>>> I'm do so. The Author of the CC-BY v3.0 files is fine with my wishes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> any hints? > >>>>>>> hermann > >>>>>> you can derive a version of the cc-by work, eveb with no > >>>>>> modifications. You just need to give it a different name and credit > >>>>>> the original author. Then you can change the license to a compatible > >>>>>> one. I suggest cc by sa since this adds GPL compatible copyleft. > >>>>>> Changes on your version need to be relicened as ccbysa then while the > >>>>>> original ccby version stays untouched. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is a general principle: a work which is as freely licensed as cc > >>>>>> by, public domain or compatible can be relicensed as-is with a more > >>>>>> strict one. > >>>>> Do you believe that it is needed to re-license it, I would prefer to > >>>>> leave the license untouched, and include it "as it is", if possible. > >>>>> My impression now, after reading all the posts about this theme on the > >>>>> debian mailing list is, that they didn't make a difference between > >>>>> cc-by-sa or just cc-by. They just mention the cc-by-sa on the wikki > >>>>> page, because it is more restricted, but open enough. > >>>>> Oh, what a hell, those license jungle. :-( > >>>> yes. That is possible. You can do whatever you want with cc by except > >>>> not giving credit. > >>>> > >>>> My suggestion assumed you want to be able to modify things and thus > >>>> are interested in copyleft. > >>>> > >>> Well, no, there is no need to modify, and I would give credits, > >>> already done on the project page, even if I didn't have upload the > >>> files to our repository and will do in the about box as well, when I > >>> upload them. > >>> > >>> I just was unsure what the license really mean, and if it is DFSGL > >>> compatible. Now, after investigate some time in research, I know, that > >>> the debain folks itself didn't know that for themselves, but the usual > >>> practice is to accept cc-by since version 3.0 (2.5). > >>> > >>> greets > >>> hermann > >>> > >> The best is happen at least, > >> I receive the permission from the original author, to re-license the > >> files and distribute them under the terms of the GPL. That's so great, > >> leave all those license jungle behind me. > >> :-) > > You didn't even need the permission. That is what I wrote at first: CC-by > > implies that you can relicense the work with a more strict license at any > > time. From cc-by-sa over GPL up to closed source. As long as you keep the > > authors name around. > > > > Since I don't know the actual code/object/thing we are talking about you > > might have stepped in the jungle yourself now: > > If that work is a binary work like audio data then the GPL is the wrong > > license. GPL is all about source code and its binary form. You can't simply > > redifine other data as source code and then say "the rest is GPL". > > > > If the original work was already fitting for CC-by (and not a mislicensed > > piece of code) then CC-by-sa might be much more appropriate, since it is > > the binary-data equivalent of the GPL. > > > > In any case and bottom line: All that matters not if you don't modify. > > > > Have fun! > > > > Nils > umpf, back in the jungle, or what? > Indeed we talk about (impulse response) wav files. > I've contacted now the debian maintainer from our package, to ask him > what debian will prefer / accept. > > thanks for your informative input Nils, I know you have fight some time > with the possible licenses of audio files for sample library’s, so I > guess you are right with what you said. > > greets > hermann hm, impulse resonance. Now that is an interesting case. Because you are not actually using it as a sample file (it is not used as a snippet, how-ever short, to create a larger piece) but as a source for data. You could (in theory) also hardwire the information you parsed from the IR file into your code. I say this because, if I were a lawyer, the interesting question is if somebody would claim that audio processed with an IR file becomes a derived work of the IR file itself. My strong guess is: no, not a derived work. To keep it safe, in this case, keep the file CC-by. There is nothing wrong with CC-by, it is super permissive and, most important: it matters not if somebody considers ir-processed audio derived or not, since CC-by does not care about derived works and copyleft. Don't relicense, keep the cc-by. Maximum compatibility, no problems (even theoretical ones). Nils _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
