[LAD] GPL & cc-by-3.0

Nils Gey ich at nilsgey.de
Sun Jun 16 15:53:07 UTC 2013

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:46:20 +0200
hermann meyer <brummer- at web.de> wrote:

> Am 16.06.2013 14:10, schrieb Nils Gey:
> > On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:04:03 +0200
> > hermann meyer <brummer- at web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >> :-)
> > You didn't even need the permission. That is what I wrote at first: CC-by implies that you can relicense the work with a more strict license at any time. From cc-by-sa over GPL up to closed source. As long as you keep the authors name around.
> >
> > Since I don't know the actual code/object/thing we are talking about you might have stepped in the jungle yourself now:
> > If that work is a binary work like audio data then the GPL is the wrong license. GPL is all about source code and its binary form. You can't simply redifine other data as source code and then say "the rest is GPL".
> >
> > If the original work was already fitting for CC-by (and not a mislicensed piece of code) then CC-by-sa might be much more appropriate, since it is the binary-data equivalent of the GPL.
> >
> > In any case and bottom line: All that matters not if you don't modify.
> >
> > Have fun!
> >
> > Nils
> umpf, back in the jungle, or what?
> Indeed we talk about (impulse response) wav files.
> I've contacted now the debian maintainer from our package, to ask him 
> what debian will prefer / accept.
> thanks for your informative input Nils, I know you have fight some time 
> with the possible licenses of audio files for sample library’s, so I 
> guess you are right with what you said.
> greets
> hermann

hm, impulse resonance. Now that is an interesting case. Because you are not actually using it as a sample file (it is not used as a snippet, how-ever short, to create a larger piece) but as a source for data. You could (in theory) also hardwire the information you parsed from the IR file into your code.

I say this because, if I were a lawyer, the interesting question is if somebody would claim that audio processed with an IR file becomes a derived work of the IR file itself. My strong guess is: no, not a derived work.

To keep it safe, in this case, keep the file CC-by. There is nothing wrong with CC-by, it is super permissive and, most important: it matters not if somebody considers ir-processed audio derived or not, since CC-by does not care about derived works and copyleft.

Don't relicense, keep the cc-by. Maximum compatibility, no problems (even theoretical ones).


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list