[coreboot] Coreboot wiki: what license is the content under?

[Sam Kuper]

Hi folks,

I do understand Nico's concern that my interpretation of CC BY 3.0
(see earlier emails in this thread) is inaccurate, and I think it is
right that, having this concern, he should challenge me to back up my
interpretation.

However, as far as I can tell, my interpretation is consistent with
the interpretations given in the CC BY 3.0 license, the CC BY 3.0
"human-readable summary", and also the Creative Commons FAQ:
https://creativecommons.org/faq/ .

Search in that FAQ for the subheading "Adapter's license chart".
Beneath that is written: "When creating an adaptation of material
under the license identified in the lefthand column, you may license
your contributions to the adaptation under one of the licenses
indicated on the top row if the corresponding box is green. CC does
not recommend using a license if the corresponding box is yellow,
although doing so is technically permitted by the terms of the
license."

The box corresponding to the first adaptation example in the scenario
I gave in my earlier email (a CC BY-licensed work being adapted, and
the adaptation being licensed as CC0 (i.e. public domain or "PD")) is
yellow.

So, Creative Commons explicitly acknowledges that an adaptation of a
CC BY-licensed work can indeed be licensed under CC0 (or, at least,
that the adapter's contribution to the adaptation can be; which I note
would be the entire adaptation, in cases such as translations or other
comprehensive adaptations).

A second derivative in such a case (i.e. an adaptation of the
CC0-licensed work) can, of course, be licensed however the second
downstream adaptor wishes, as corroborated by the corresponding solid
green "PD" row in the table.

(Yes, I know that the FAQ also advises people using one of the yellow
cells in the adapter's license chart that they "should take additional
care to mark the adaptation as involving multiple copyrights under
different terms so that downstream users are aware of their
obligations to comply with the licenses from all rights holders." But
a *should* is not a *must*, and as is acknowledged in the previous
sentence in that FAQ, there is no technical requirement for them to do
so.)

As long as there is any *possibility* that my interpretation is
correct, CC BY-SA 3.0 seems like a much safer license for Coreboot to
use.


On 02/04/2017, Nico Huber <nico.h at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 01.04.2017 17:19, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> In the case of both CC BY and CC BY-SA, the rights granted to the
>> *recipient of the licensed work* include the freedom to create
>> adaptations and to distribute or publicly perform them, subject *only*
>> to a small list of restrictions. CC BY has a shorter list of
>> restrictions than CC BY-SA.
>
> Perfectly summarized, yet you miss the point. It doesn't say anything
> about granting to change the terms.

I think you misunderstand how permissive licensing works.

You seem to be believe that the license would have to specifically
outline every possible thing that the licensee is permitted to do. I
think that is a false belief.

Licenses often grant the recipient the freedom to do with the work
whatever they like (i.e. including redistribution under a different
license, if they wish) as long as they adhere to some short list of
conditions.

The human-readable summary of CC BY 3.0 is pretty clear: "in any
medium or format", "for any purpose, even commercially", "The licensor
cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms,"
and "No additional restrictions". I'm curious what makes you think
that CC BY does in fact impose some unspecified restriction on the
license for an adapted work?



>> As such, CC BY grants the creator of an adapted work the freedom to
>> publicly performed or distribute that adapted work under a different
>> license.
>
> A license [...] can only restrict
> permissions it granted.

Essentially, yes.


> So again, this is only the case if the license
> explicitly states permission to license the adapted work under different
> terms.

I don't think this is correct.

It can say, "You can do whatever you like with this work except X."
(This is how the CC licenses are constructed, and likewise the various
BSD licenses, the Expat License, and the X11 License.)

It does not have to say, " You can do A or B or C ...  or V or W but not X."


> I see a pattern here: Every time you claim this, you don't quote.

I've been citing the licenses themselves, and their "human-readable"
summaries, which were created by Creative Commons specifically to help
people interpret the licenses properly. That's about as authoritative
and clear a bunch of sources as one could hope for.


> Yet, you write thousands of words, have a quote on every other thing.
> Just to hide that you have nothing to substantiate this claim.

Nothing except the licenses themselves, their human-readable
summaries, and the CC FAQ linked above?


> I just have the bad feeling, that you may harm CC BY's reputation.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I think it's a great license for
people who only want copies of the original, and first derivatives, to
require attribution, and who want to impose very few other
restrictions. I am very happy for CC BY to exist, but I do think it
would be a really bad choice for the Coreboot wiki.

Anyhow, I'm the least of CC BY's worries. If you want to see someone
really tear into it, read this: http://copyfree.org/policy/permissive
.


> Have
> you ever asked somebody at CC if your interpretation is correct?

The licenses, the human-readable summaries, and the CC FAQ all seem to
me to be consistent with my interpretation. Besides, no-one, not even
a CC employee or a copyright lawyer, can be certain how a court would
interpret the licences in this regard. There is some case law relating
to Creative Commons licenses, but I don't think it covers the matter
we have been discussing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creative_Commons_license&oldid=773268297#Legal_aspects


Regards.