[LAD] GPL & cc-by-3.0

hermann meyer brummer- at web.de
Sun Jun 16 12:04:03 UTC 2013

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

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list