Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to write this. It was very clear.
In the light of your email, and the part of the Creative Commons FAQ that you quoted, I am questioning my previous position. I will clarify what it was, in case anyone is interested.
On 02/04/2017, David Hendricks david.hendricks@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Sam Kuper sam.kuper@uclmail.net wrote: The fundamental disagreement seems to be how an adapter's chosen license applies to the original work.
Not quite. I think the disagreement has been about whether the adapter's chosen license applies to the entire adapted work, or solely to the adapter's contribution.
In coding terms, I was assuming that the adapter's license applies to the body of code that results from applying the adapter's patch, but not necessarily to the patch itself. My understanding was based upon the text of the licenses, their human-readable summaries, the "adapter's license chart", and especially the first three sentences of Wikipedia's article "Derivative work":
A "derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright."
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derivative_work&oldid=7699641... .)
I assumed all three of those sentences were correct. I.e. the derivative work is a second work that includes elements of the underlying work, though those elements may have been transformed in the process of making the derivative work.
I further assumed that the only entities licensable are works, and that the only two works in the scenario described in those three sentences were the ones explicitly named as such: the underlying work, and the derived work.
I now see that there is a third work mentioned, but not explicitly named as such: the "transformation, modification or adaptation" itself. In coding terms: the patch. I now also see that you and Nico were arguing that it is *this* work - the patch - to which the adapter's license applies.
Your argument seems to be that when an adapter chooses a license for their adaptation that the adaptation's license is applied to the original, i.e. the original work is re-licensed under different terms. Correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your argument.
That isn't quite what I was arguing :)
I did not believe that when an adapter chooses a license for an adapted work, that this re-licenses the original work.
I believed that an adapter can, unless prevented from doing so by the underlying work's license, apply a different license to an adapted work; and that this license would apply to the entirety of the adapted work.
The FAQ clarifies the relationship between the license for the original work and the license an adapter chooses for their contribution: "If I derive or adapt material offered under a Creative Commons license, which CC license(s) can I use?
If you make adaptations of material under a CC license (i.e. "remix"), the original CC license always applies to the material you are adapting even once adapted. The license you may choose for your own contribution (called your "adapter's license") depends on which license applies to the original material. Recipients of the adaptation must comply with both the CC license on the original and your adapter’s license."
Interesting.
So here's how things would play out in the Alice, Bob and Mallory scenario you came up with:
- Alice writes an article, publishes it under BY.
- Bob adapts the article, gives proper attribution to Alice, and decides
to license his contributions under CC0. 3. Mallory adapts Bob's article. Alice's original content is still covered by the BY license, so Mallory must give proper attribution to Alice. Bob's additions were CC0-licensed and have no such requirement.
(Note that Bob's modifications needn't be additions: they could be subtractions or other transformations.)
Thank you for spelling this out. Your interpretation does indeed seem to be consistent with the FAQ, and inconsistent with my previous understanding as expressed above and in previous emails. I have written to Creative Commons to seek confirmation, just in case I *was* correct about the risk posed by CC BY, but it seems I was not.
The licenses, the human-readable summaries, and the CC FAQ all seem to me to be consistent with my interpretation.
Mine too ;-)
Indeed :)
Good discussion, but I suppose it will take somebody with access to a lawyer to tell us who is correct, or at least who is more likely to be correct (since as you point out it's not really settled until some court ruling comes out of it).
I'll report back if I hear from Creative Commons :)
I'm sorry for how much time this has taken up. At least it will be preserved for reference in the mailing list archive, and might resolve similar confusion should any arise in the future.
Thanks again,
Sam
-
Sam Kuper