

What's new in Creative Commons 4.0 - cstuder
http://creativecommons.org/Version4

======
jstalin
Looks like they significantly cleaned up the warranty disclaimer and fixed the
limitation of damages, which likely would have been a problem in US courts.

~~~
nkurz
Is there case law on disclaimers of warranty for open source software? In
particular, has anyone been successfully sued for an providing free software
that was not fit for a particular purpose? I was recently hoping that these
disclaimers were legal paranoia, but I have no actual knowledge.

------
MarcusVorenus
Looks like GPL compatibility was not included after all?

~~~
passepartout
The compatibility would not be part of the license in any case. Some licenses
could be considered compatible with GPL (specifically the CC BY SA). However,
CC generally suggests that the licenses are used for non-software creations.

~~~
Shamanmuni
I think the problem is that both GPL and CC-BY-SA require you to license
derivative works with that same license. And sometimes it's not easy to tell
if something is or isn't software in a clear way.

For example, if you modify an image of a map licensed with CC-BY-SA for it to
be used in a level of a game licensed with GPL, which license should you use
for the derivative work? Is it data, code or both at the same time? What's the
status of an image or a sound made with a script (think about fractals, for
example)?

Both licenses are "viral" and require you to use that and not the other. You
are on a deadlock.

~~~
passepartout
This is the general problem with share alike clauses and GPL is known for
adopting a very limited interpretation of their Share Alike clause. They have
recognized CC0 as being compatible with GPL, which is a step. In your example,
I'd say that most definitely software cannot be under CC. My perception is
that the software license always prevails. Now the image in the game could be
implemented with an authorization from the author (it's the best way to avoid
problems in any case).

~~~
Shamanmuni
I'm in complete agreement with you, but I think we wouldn't need to rely on
personal interpretations and recommended practices if the SA licenses stated
clearly something akin to:

If a copy or a derivative work of the licensed material is to be included in a
piece of software under the General Public License or other strong copyleft
license, then it must be licensed under that license for compliance.

I don't speak legalese, so I'm sure that text is full of holes and possible
misinterpretations, but surely a group of experts could come up with something
legally viable in that spirit.

------
drakaal
Basically unusable.

If you had put in the terms of your OpenSource Image Hosting platform that
users couldn't use the software to host violent or simulated violent content,
that restriction is removed by CC 4.0.

Conversely you can now require that anyone who uses your Image Hosting
Platform gives you the rights to any data about users of that platform. This
will probably only hold in Europe since in the US data is pretty hard to
copyright.

It also now allows that if you are a Model in an image that is shared as
Creative commons that if someone wants to make modification to that image to
make it look like you are being Raped, or raping someone else that is
permissible, and you can only say all derivative works are allowed, or none
are allowed.

This is a major step backwards.

~~~
asb
> If you had put in the terms of your OpenSource Image Hosting platform that
> users couldn't use the software to host violent or simulated violent
> content, that restriction is removed by CC 4.0.

I don't immediately see where CC 4.0 does this, but if it does I view it as a
good thing. If you add extra terms on top of a CC license it is no longer a CC
license and you should not label it as such.

> Conversely you can now require that anyone who uses your Image Hosting
> Platform gives you the rights to any data about users of that platform. This
> will probably only hold in Europe since in the US data is pretty hard to
> copyright.

Wait, what? Is this some weird interpretation of the new clarifications on
database rights? The Creative Commons license has nothing to do with data you
hold privately.

> It also now allows that if you are a Model in an image that is shared as
> Creative commons that if someone wants to make modification to that image to
> make it look like you are being Raped, or raping someone else that is
> permissible, and you can only say all derivative works are allowed, or none
> are allowed.

As long as the person who put the work under the CC license was in a position
to sign over the model's moral rights. It's meant to be an easy to understand
and use license, the fact that allowing derivative works is a binary decision
is a good thing in my view.

~~~
drakaal
Waive of moral rights. It was hinted in 3 but is now explicit.

As written you can now own data created by your software used by others. The
intent was likely that you could license data as CC some rights reserved, but
in the process it appears that you can now claim rights to data created by the
software you are licensing.

Most licenses for Personality or likeness of a human allow restrictions on the
way that image is to be used. I can't take a picture of your mom, and then
have it be used in an ad that implies she has STD's. With good reason. If I
posed a model to look like she was basting a turkey for thanksgiving, and then
modded the image to be part of a pornographic image she would now be a porn
star rather than a cooking personality. She would have no problem being in a
derivative work that added titling or changed the color of the walls, or
featured a different brand oven, but probably wouldn't be ok if the image was
modded to look like she was inserting a turkey baster in to a persons rectum.

~~~
Shamanmuni
If you want to have control about how your creative works are reused, then you
should choose to stay with plain-old Copyright and grant (or deny)
authorizations as requested.

It's a little bit crazy to say "Yeah, this license gives you total freedom to
reuse this work however you want without asking permission, except when the
original author doesn't like the result". Where do you draw the line? It
defeats the purpose of the license.

You can make a parallel with FOSS, your software could be used to run nuclear
missiles, a pedophilia network or other nasty things. I don't like it quite a
bit, but the other option is a slippery slope in my opinion.

~~~
drakaal
GPL and MIT both allow you to put any restriction you want in the license.
"Free for use to academia and by organizations which are working for the
betterment of Animals"

The courts might have given the copyright holder a hard time, but the license
was setup such that in the documentation you could add restrictions.

Because this wasn't specifically blocked by 3.0, this is a new restriction
because it is explicit in this license.

~~~
mkesper
You cannot add additional restrictions to GPLed works, they are void.
[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#NoMilitary](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary)

~~~
drakaal
Sorry that was a change from V2 of GPL. I had forgotten that GPL changed in
v3. I try to avoid V3 because several bad things came from that change. The
Free for Noncommercial use change being among them.

~~~
belorn
> The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them.

GPLv3 added two new concept.

1#, you may not give people software under false pretense, and then later go
sue them for patents.

2#, you may not work around the license with the use of technical
restrictions. The rights provided in the license to users should not be
limited by legal (gplv2), and gplv3 simply adds same rule to cover identical
restrictions from technical means.

What has either to do with commercial use?

