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

[Sam Kuper]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper at 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=769964199
.)

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:
> 1. Alice writes an article, publishes it under BY.
> 2. 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