Re: Derivatives forced to have the same license
On 06/02/14 01:36, Matthew Kloth wrote: For example: I make an image and put it under my superviral license. Somebody else creates a derivative and posts it to deviantart or flickr or some such place. Their derivative work is automatically under the superviral license simply because they created and distributed a derivative. Even if they don't put a superviral license notice, it would still be under that license whether or not they wanted it to be. As far as I'm aware, the GPL gets as close to this as is legally possible. GPL3 §9: You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so. (GPL2 §5 is similar.) If the author of a derivative work[1] asserts that they have not agreed to the license, then they're illegally infringing your copyright instead, and what happens is between you, them and the legal system. If threatened with legal action, I would hope that the rational response would be to apologise and release their derivative under an appropriate license; but you never know. If the derivative work is derived from more than one source then it certainly isn't safe to say this is GPL'd, because the GPL says so, because its publisher might not have the authority to release it under GPL at all. A concrete example to make this less vague: * Alice publishes a work A under CC-BY-NC * Bob publishes a work B under the GPL * Chris publishes a work C derived from both A and B Chris does not have the authority to release C under the GPL (because the GPL allows commercial use and CC-BY-NC does not), CC-BY-NC (because the GPL does not allow that additional restriction), or any other license (because they can't satisfy both conditions simultaneously), so depending on the license they chose for C, they are infringing Alice's copyright, Bob's copyright, or both. S [1] assuming that what they're doing with their derivative is something that is forbidden by copyright law in the relevant jurisdiction (which it might not be, for instance if their work is a parody of yours) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52f37374.3050...@debian.org
Derivatives forced to have the same license
Is it legally possible to create a copyleft license that automatically forces all derivatives to have the same license? It would be an art license, not a software license, if that makes any difference. I know the GPL is often accused of doing this, but I was wondering if it was actually legally possible. For example: I make an image and put it under my superviral license. Somebody else creates a derivative and posts it to deviantart or flickr or some such place. Their derivative work is automatically under the superviral license simply because they created and distributed a derivative. Even if they don't put a superviral license notice, it would still be under that license whether or not they wanted it to be.
Re: Derivatives forced to have the same license
Matthew Kloth musedfa...@gmail.com writes: Is it legally possible to create a copyleft license that automatically forces all derivatives to have the same license? What work is being proposed for inclusion in Debian? Hypotheticals are rarely helpful in the absence of a concrete work so that its specific issues can be discussed. First, the force doesn't come from the license; a license *permits* actions that are otherwise restricted by copyright law. The restrictive force comes from copyright law, so it makes no sense to talk of a license “forcing” someone to do anything. Second, would it be acceptable that you permit redistribution under license terms that are different, but *no more restrictive than* the license terms you grant? If so, that's entailed within the general meaning of a copyleft license. It would be an art license, not a software license, if that makes any difference. I think it doesn't; there is no clear line between programs and art, and depending on such a distinction for legal difference is a fool's game. They're all software (digitally-encoded information), even if the FSF disagrees with that usage. The GPL is fine for applying to any digital work, in my opinion. I know the GPL is often accused of doing this, but I was wondering if it was actually legally possible. What you may be referring to is the entire purpose of copyleft: to permit redistribution, provided the redistribution terms apply no additional restrictions on any recipient. The GPL is a copyleft license, as is the CC-By-SA license. They both specify that you must grant all recipients all the terms in the license; but they also allow licensing under “compatible” terms, which means you can also grant the recipient additional permissions. Unfortunately, the GPL and CC-By-SA are not compatible with each other, which means a work combining both sets of license terms would need to make very clear what terms apply and how the incompatibility is resolved. It's for that reason that I strongly recommend you license the entire work as free software, under a single well-understood license. -- \ “I was in a bar the other night, hopping from barstool to | `\ barstool, trying to get lucky, but there wasn't any gum under | _o__) any of them.” —Emo Philips | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/85ha8ddlq2@benfinney.id.au
