Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

not all cc sharealike licenses are copyleft, so be specific

Browse source 
automatic relicensing is an exaggeration
cc by-sa case is even more nuanced, briefly mention in fn
This commit is contained in:
Mike Linksvayer 2014-10-21 22:16:49 -07:00 • committed by Bradley M. Kuhn
parent 652ff19285
commit dd20a395b7
1 changed files with 12 additions and 10 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

22
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -1006,16 +1006,18 @@ combined and modified works. As such, software licensed under the terms of
``GPLv2-only'' cannot be combined with works licensed ``GPLv3-or-later''.
This is admittedly a frustrating outcome.
Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such
as the Creative Commons ``Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License
and the Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders choosing
to use any version of those licenses to automatically accept and relicense
their copyrighted works under new versions. Of course, Creative Commons, the
Eclipse Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation (like the FSF) have generally
served as excellent stewards of their licenses. Copyright holders using
those licenses seems to find it acceptable to fully delegate all future
licensing decisions for their copyrights to these organizations without a
second thought.
Other copyleft licenses that appeared after GPL, such as the Creative Commons
``Attribution-Share Alike'' licenses, the Eclipse Public License and the
Mozilla Public License \textbf{require} all copyright holders choosing
to use any version of those licenses to automatically allow use of their
copyrighted works under new versions.\footnote{CC-BY-SA-2.0 and greater only
permit licensing of adaptations under future versions; 1.0 did not have
any accomodation for future version compatibility.} Of course, Creative
Commons, the Eclipse Foundation, and the Mozilla Foundation (like the FSF)
have generally served as excellent stewards of their licenses. Copyright
holders using those licenses seems to find it acceptable to fully delegate
all future licensing decisions for their copyrights to these organizations
without a second thought.
However, note that FSF gives herein the control of copyright holders to
decide whether or not to implicitly trust the FSF in its work of drafting