48

CC's own FAQ addresses the reasons, which I find satisfactory, so I'm just going to reproduce it here and expand on the key points: Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software. Many software licenses ...


19

Yes, they can publish a PDF without publishing the modified LaTeX sources. No, this is not DRM. CC-BY-SA is not an open-source license. It is intended for creative works such as photographs or writings even where there might not be any kind of editable source format. The license explicitly allows any licensee to change the format of the work: 2(a)(4): ...


18

Stack Overflow contributions (and all of Stack Exchange's too) are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. That basically means that You are free to Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as ...


16

The CC-BY-SA 3.0 license is “forward compatible” with later versions. In section 4(b): You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license ...


15

You are correct that re-licensing virtually always requires the permission of the copyright holder. This was a rather exceptional case. All material on Wikipedia used to be under the license GFDL v1.2, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. The next version released by the FSF, GFDL v1.3, contained a provision that allowed any ...


14

The Creative Commons organization has a page on Legal Music For Videos which states (emphasis mine): Under CC licenses, synching the music to images amounts to transforming the music, so you can’t legally use a song under a CC No Derivative Works license in your video. This corresponds to the "synchronization" provision in section 1(a) of CC-BY-SA 3.0 (...


13

TL;DR: CC-BY-SA is a technically perfect open source license. CC-BY-SA's use is discouraged because of the "license proliferation" problem. Going into more detail on the first point, first we need to know what it means to be an "open source" license. OSI has a great definition of what it means to be open: http://opensource.org/osd Lets go through each ...


13

In 4(c) of CC BY-SA 3.0 it is defined how attribution has to be provided. For the work’s URL, it says: […] (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; […] So if a work’s page no longer ...


13

The CC ShareAlike terms merely say that whenever you do make a derivative work of the image, distribution of that derivative work must be under ShareAlike (or CC-approved ShareAlike-compatible) terms. The relevant unsettled question is exactly when a derivative work is created, which lies in the domain of copyright law, not the license terms. Certainly ...


11

You only need to share the image under CC-BY-SA. This means your project will be multi-licensed. The important part is that only the image is currently under BY-SA. Since the only requirement of the license is that if you share, modify or redistribute the image, you have to license it under BY-SA. The license of the image can have no bearing on the rest of ...


11

In the large majority of cases, the software of a program and the artwork used by a program are not related to each other where copyright is concerned. An exception might be an image that was created by a program from a fixed formula and the source code of that program. For a work to be considered a derived work, there must be a way to go from the original ...


11

No, it’s not allowed. It says on the license summary page: No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. And in the license: For Licensed Material (i.e., the unmodified work): No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any ...


10

Does this sentence just summarize what the consequences are of licensing (to SE) my content under CC BY-SA 3.0? Or does this sentence state that I’m licensing (to SE) my content under a second license? It does not just summarize the CC-BY-SA license. You are indeed dual licensing your content to Stack Exchange. By posting to a Stack Exchange site, ...


9

The answer is that it depends. According the just the licensing: no, you can't, the licenses aren't compatible. But that's not the entirety of the story. That only applies if the snippet itself is eligible to be copyrighted in the first place. When that applies differs from country to country. Some take in to account the effort that was needed to create ...


8

If it's just small snippets, then that likely falls under fair use. In that case, the license doesn't matter and you are allowed to post them. Though how small exactly would the snippets have to be is not specified, so you should be really careful about keeping them really small.


8

Distributing images alongside text creates a combined work, but not a derivative work, and your images are not bound by the CC BY-SA requirements. Allowing the distributing of books of CC BY-SA licensed text is very much the intention of the license, and expressly legal. You are correct that the license mandates your text is available under CC BY-SA as well....


8

Yes, you can as it is your code only (and so you can license it to SE as you like). The fact that source code contains text import g, does not make said source code derived work (as it doesn't contain any code that you yourself didn't write), and so license of g is of no importance whatsoever for the purpose of posting said source code snippet. But if some ...


7

Your work incorporating the Wikipedia material appears to be an "Adaptation" as defined in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported 1.a: "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram ...


7

In brief, item #1 is incorrect, and item #2 is broadly correct, with possible exceptions. You may release a copyrighted work under any number of licenses independently and simultaneously. The fact that you offer some of your code under a CC BY-SA in no way impedes your ability to also offer it under the Apache 2 license, and vice versa. You are the ...


7

IANAL but according to the Creative Commons Foundation although the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license allows you to license your new contributions under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license it doesn't allow you to "upgrade" the original CC-BY-SA 3.0 license of the original work. So technically the effective overall license of your translated work will be a CC-BY-SA 3.0 + CC-BY-SA 4.0 ...


6

Yes, you can merge information from CC-BY sources into a CC-BY-SA work (but not the other way). That is because CC-BY-SA still includes all conditions of CC-BY. Note, as suggested by Martijn in the comments: It is still important to correctly attribute the changes to their respective author (as bot CC-BY and CC-BY-SA demand). Also Wikipedia can have it's ...


6

Yes (provided I've understood the question correctly). Here is the question: If I want to adapt the code for this web page to host copyrighted content which cannot be redistributed, can I? If you look inside the GitHub archive, you'll find the entire site there. All of it (markup and its existing contents) is licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0. Since this is ...


6

In copyright law, expression is copyrightable, and ideas are not copyrightable. In particular, expression is copyrightable only insofar as that expression is distinct from the idea is expresses. This is closely related to the "merger doctrine," which states that when an idea can only be expressed in a limited number of ways, then expressions of that idea are ...


6

No, the share-alike terms mean that if you create a derivative work of the CC-BY-SA licensed work, you can only publish it under the same license. But including a CC-BY-SA licensed work into a larger work doesn't necessarily affect that larger work. The question is: Am I merely reproducing a licensed work? This is explicitly allowed by the license, as long ...


6

Your interpretation is correct, you are relying on the license steward (in this case Creative Commons) to continue to act in good faith and according to their vision and mission. You cannot add restrictions to CC licenses, you can only give more permissions. So you won't be able to restrict users from using a later license if the current license gives them ...


6

No, but maybe. You have correctly noted that this is a problem. You cannot paste GPL'ed code to Stack Overflow. But there are two exceptions, which depend on the copyright laws in your local jurisdiction. The code snippet does not fall under copyright. Copyright protects creative expression. If the code snippet is very short, or cannot be creative because ...


6

That is a lot of questions for one post, and you don't say what jurisdiction you're in. Nevertheless, and noting that IANAL/IANYL, I'll try to answer at least some of them. My principal authority is Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group. As I said in an earlier reference to this case, the writeup linked is rather emotive and misspells the plaintiff's name ...


5

CC BY-SA does have a viral nature. ShareAlike means that you need to distribute under the same or compatible license. Section 4.b of the license addresses that. There are currently no non-CC licenses that have been designated as compatible with BY-SA 3.0, but the Free Art License and GPLv3 are compatible with BY-SA 4.0. My initial thought would be the GPL ...


5

The simplest answer is that you are the copyright holder, and Stack Exchange's license to your work is not exclusive, so you have unlimited rights to use your own work however you please. You cannot go wrong republishing your own work, since you are still the copyright holder of the work and never promised an exclusive license to anyone (e.g., as you might ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible