Re: [LAD] GPL & cc-by-3.0

From: hermann meyer <brummer-@web.de>
Date: Sun Jun 16 2013 - 15:04:03 EEST

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 <brummer-@web.de> wrote:
>>> Am 15.06.2013 17:47, schrieb Nils Gey:
>>>> On Sat Jun 15 17:01:05 2013 hermann meyer <brummer-@web.de> 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.
:-)

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Jun 16 16:15:02 2013

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 16 2013 - 16:15:02 EEST