<font><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline" id="internal-source-marker_0.07007483263202818">Hi Anthony, </span><br>
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline"></span><br><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">Thanks
for raising this question. The short answer is no, we do not think CC
BY is incompatible with the ODbL. People can remix BY-licensed databases
and license them under the ODbL. </span><br><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline"></span><br>
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">The
reason why we think they are compatible requires a bit of a longer
answer. First, we should explain how we think about compatibility. A
license is compatible with another license if you can take work licensed
under the first license, adapt it, and then license the rights you have
in the adaptation under the second license. As a legal matter, this is
allowed as long as the first license: (1) allows you to create
adaptations, and (2) does not dictate that you license your rights to an
adaptation under particular terms and conditions. CC BY v3 meets both
of these conditions. So long as a licensee appropriately attributes the
BY licensor when they share their adaptation, they may apply the ODbL
(or any other license) to their copyright in the adaptation. </span><br><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline"></span><br>
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">As
a practical matter, compatibility is slightly more complicated because
of the concept I explained in my prior <a href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2013-January/008256.html">email</a> on this thread: an
adaptation is always subject to two copyrights. When those copyrights
are licensed on different terms, it can be difficult for those using the
adaptation to sort out their obligations. In this context, someone
using the ODbL-licensed adaptation would have to comply with both the
ODbL and CC BY (to the extent they make a use of the adaptation that
implicates both copyrights). </span><br><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline"></span><br>
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">The
TPM restriction in CC BY does not complicate reuse from this
perspective. Although the ODbL permits application of TPMs if a free
version is distributed in parallel, it by no means </span><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">requires </span><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">application of TPMs. Therefore, it would be easy to comply with both licenses by simply not applying TPMs to the adaptation. </span><br>
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline"></span><br><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">You
also asked whether the new clause in the current working language of
Version 4.0 about how to license adaptations of BY-licensed works
changes anything. The answer to that question is no, the clause only
makes explicit what I have explained above. The license applied to the
adaptation must be one that allows someone using the adaptation to
simultaneously comply with CC BY. </span><br><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline"></span><br>
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">This
email only scratches the surface of all of the interesting and
complicated issues relating to compatibility. We are in the process of
developing a more in-depth explanation of these issues. Please look for
more on that in the near future. </span><br><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline"></span><br>
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">best,</span><br><span style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">Sarah </span></font><br>
<br><br clear="all"><div>Sarah Hinchliff Pearson, Senior Counsel<br>
Creative Commons<br>
444 Castro Street, Suite 900<br>
Mountain View, California 94041<br>skype: sarah-h-pearson<br>
email: <a href="mailto:sarah@creativecommons.org" target="_blank">sarah@creativecommons.org</a><br>
______________________________<div><br></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Anthony <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:osm@inbox.org" target="_blank">osm@inbox.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Given the TPM restriction, is CC able to definitely state that CC-BY<br>
is not compatible with ODbL (as in, a derivative database of a CC-BY<br>
database cannot be licensed under ODbL)?<br>
<br>
Does the new rule about adaptations alter that at all?<br>
<div class="im HOEnZb"><br>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Sarah Pearson<br>
<<a href="mailto:sarah@creativecommons.org">sarah@creativecommons.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> Happy new year! Over the past month or so, we have been working on refining<br>
> draft 3 of Version 4.0, and we plan to publish it shortly. In the meantime,<br>
> we wanted to follow up on this particular thread about the reach of the TPM<br>
> restriction because it touches on a lot of complicated issues relating to<br>
> the licenses. Most importantly, it hinges on what happens to the original<br>
> work when an adaptation is created. We have done a lot of thinking about<br>
> these issues over the last several weeks as we endeavored to make the<br>
> concepts more clear in Version 4.0.<br>
><br>
> The starting point to answer this question is a fundamental concept about<br>
> how adaptations work under copyright law. That is, the rights in an<br>
> adaptation never touch the rights to the original from which it is<br>
> derived.[1] That means an adaptation is always subject to two copyrights: in<br>
> the CC license context, one copyright is held by the adapter with respect to<br>
> the new contributions, and one is held by the original licensor with respect<br>
> to the original.<br>
><br>
> This helps to answer the question about the TPM restriction because it<br>
> demonstrates how adaptations necessarily include the licensed work.<br>
> Therefore, if you are not allowed to lock down the licensed work by applying<br>
> TPMs, by default you are not allowed to lock down an adaptation by applying<br>
> TPMs, at least to the extent the TPMs restrict access to the original<br>
> licensed work.<br>
><br>
> This same concept applies to all obligations in the licenses that apply to<br>
> the licensed work, including the provision dictating that the CC license<br>
> always follows the original work, offering a new license to downstream<br>
> recipients when licensees share the work, and to the provision prohibiting<br>
> licensees from imposing new legal terms or conditions upon the original<br>
> work. Because adaptations necessarily include the licensed work, downstream<br>
> recipients of adaptations get access to the original work under the original<br>
> CC license without any new terms and conditions imposed by the licensee.<br>
><br>
> This might start to sound a bit like ShareAlike, but there is an important<br>
> difference, and it relates to the fundamental concept explained above: there<br>
> are always at least two copyrights in an adaptation. With that in mind,<br>
> under the ShareAlike licenses, licensees are required to share their own<br>
> rights in the adaptation under identical terms and conditions. In the<br>
> non-ShareAlike licenses, licensees are free to share their own rights in an<br>
> adaptation on any terms, even though the original CC license always follows<br>
> the adaptation with respect to the original work.<br>
><br>
> In the upcoming draft of Version 4.0, we have made an important change to<br>
> the above concepts. We have included a limited rule as to how adaptations of<br>
> non-ShareAlike licenses must be licensed. The rule, which will be included<br>
> only in CC BY and CC BY-NC, states that adaptations may be licensed on any<br>
> terms, so long as people using the adaptation are able to comply<br>
> simultaneously with those terms and the original CC license (since both<br>
> licenses apply).[2] This ensures that licensees are not releasing their<br>
> rights to adaptations in a way that would make it impossible for downstream<br>
> recipients to reuse the adaptation as a whole.<br>
><br>
> Another important change in this upcoming draft of 4.0 relates to TPMs.<br>
> Licensors have always had the ability to apply TPMs to their own works (even<br>
> though doing so frustrates the purpose of the license because it makes it<br>
> difficult for licensees to exercise their rights). In the new draft, we have<br>
> included express permission to circumvent any TPMs that are applied by<br>
> licensors.[3]<br>
><br>
> We look forward to hearing from you on these and other important proposed<br>
> changes to the licenses during the upcoming public comment period.<br>
><br>
> best,<br>
> Sarah<br>
><br>
> FNs:<br>
> [1] Article 2(3) of the Berne Convention: “Translations, adaptations,<br>
> arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work<br>
> shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in<br>
> the original work.” (emphasis added)<br>
><br>
> [2] The current working language for d3 is: “You may release Your Copyright<br>
> and Similar Rights in the Adapted Material on any terms and conditions<br>
> provided users of the Adapted Material are able to simultaneously satisfy<br>
> those terms and conditions and this Public License.”<br>
><br>
> [3] The current working language for d3 is: “ You are authorized to exercise<br>
> the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter<br>
> created, and You are authorized to make technical modifications necessary to<br>
> do so. The Licensor waives or agrees not to assert any right or authority<br>
> that the Licensor may have to forbid You from making such technical<br>
> modifications, including modifications necessary to circumvent effective<br>
> technological measures applied by the Licensor ”<br>
><br>
><br>
> Sarah Hinchliff Pearson, Senior Counsel<br>
> Creative Commons<br>
> 444 Castro Street, Suite 900<br>
> Mountain View, California 94041<br>
> skype: sarah-h-pearson<br>
> email: <a href="mailto:sarah@creativecommons.org">sarah@creativecommons.org</a><br>
> ______________________________<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Anthony <<a href="mailto:osm@inbox.org">osm@inbox.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> "When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose<br>
>> any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the<br>
>> ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights<br>
>> granted to that recipient under the terms of the License."<br>
>><br>
>> Does this apply to Adaptations as well, or does it only apply to the<br>
>> original Work? Assume the Adaptation is not released under CC-BY.<br>
>><br>
>> Does this answer change in 4.0?<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> List info and archives at<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community" target="_blank">http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community</a><br>
>> Unsubscribe at <a href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community" target="_blank">http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> List info and archives at<br>
> <a href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community" target="_blank">http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community</a><br>
> Unsubscribe at <a href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community" target="_blank">http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>