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; […]
if a work’s page no longer ...
Your analysis seems to be sound except:
You may be able get around this by
Referring to the CC media rather than including it (downloaded from the web)
Publishing a link (inside the app) to the CC media in an approved non-drm mechanism.
Including the CC media in a form that is unprotected.
Note: You CAN use DRM, you just cannot restrict the rights.
CC-BY is listed among compatible licenses near the bottom of the GPL license compatibility page:
This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art and
entertainment works, and educational works. It is compatible with all
versions of the GNU GPL; however, it is not recommended for use on
In general, the difference between CC0 and CC-...
The code you're building on in BY-NC-ND, which requires attribution, forbids commercial use, and disallowed derivatives.
If you build on that code, it's a derivative, which is not allowed by the license. Even if you gradually replace everything, it is still a derivative.
Anything you change you can call your own, but the resulting work will always be a ...
The use of Creative Commons licenses for software is not recommended. The CC licenses do not address concerns specific to software (such as the source code/object code relationship, or patent issues), and are incompatible with most open-source software licenses.
If you want to license your software "with no conditions or rules", you probably want either:
You decide what conditions you publish your product under. With CC-BY that is that you require only attribution.
They decide what conditions they publish their derived product under. You have to abide by the rules they set, just as they have to abide by yours.
The CC-BY-SA license has a Share Alike (SA) clause. This obliges people using your product ...
Adapted works of CC-BY licensed works are not restricted to the same license. You may use any license for the adapted work, as long as proper attribution is preserved.
However, you are using mechanical transformations to modify the original work. As these transformations lack any element of creativity, you have no copyright for “your” modifications and ...
The first part is looking at where the licenses are applied.
CC BY (and -SA) are mostly applied to creative works: things such as pictures, text, music and video. Whereas the BSD is applied to source code. The issue that you make note of is with attribution.
So how do we attribute with both licenses?
With the Creative Commons license we simply need to ...
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 ...
Is there any particular reason to license docs with CC BY 4.0 rather than MIT?
The MIT license was originally designed primarily for software code (and its related documentation).
The CC licenses family was originally designed for content such as books, music, etc.
Because of this history, it happens that some projects use two different licenses: one for ...
Creative Commons also has a wiki page with some best practices for attributing. On that page they say among other things
Don't make it too complicated
The license tells you to be reasonable:
You may satisfy the conditions in (1) and (2) above in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means and context in which the Licensed Material is used. For example,...
I am going to answer this by dipping down in the actual license, and some of the work that led to it.
Early on in the process to create CC version 4.0, it was objected that a too strict ban on "Technological Protection Measures - TPM" (lawyer-speak for DRM) that had been used in previous version would disallow use of CC licensed materials on too many ...
The CC-BY licenses are not copy-left. They do not require you to publish the content under the same license. The only big license condition is that you must provide proper attribution.
Therefore, changing the license of the content is totally unproblematic, even when changing to non-CC licenses – as long as you keep the attribution intact.
The situation is ...
Yes. The CC-BY license is one of their more permissive licenses: it simply requires attributing the original author.
So: no you don't need permission. You simply need to include, somewhere in your finished product (perhaps an about or credits screen) the name of the author and preferably a link back to where you found it.
There is no Share Alike ...
A legal requirements to preserve the integrity of authorship and copyright information follows from article 6bis of the Berne Convention (about moral rights). In the USA, U.S. Code § 1202: "Integrity of copyright management information", is quite explicit about this - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1202 - but similar provisions exists in the ...
If you use A, which includes B, you need to follow the license of B insofar as you redistribute B as part of A. The authors of A can't legally give you the authority not to attribute B when you distribute A (unless A's authors worked out a separate licensing arrangement with the authors of B).
As for X, no attribution is necessary as long as no distribution ...
I'm not familiar with Wikidata, but I don't think this would be ok.
When you go to create an article on Wikidata, you're met with this:
There's nothing there about contributing content that is licensed by ...
Dual-licensing under MIT and CC-BY is a workable solution. Both licenses have the same basic goal of permitting reasonably unrestricted use while preserving authorship credit. They differ in the details (CC-BY has a number of clauses that really only apply to creative works, while MIT has clauses that only apply to software), but since you're dual-...
[...] Bob releases all software at employer A under CC-BY-4.0. This is justified because the code will be released as open source due to the nature of the field.
No, this is not justified. The code that Bob writes at employer A is the property of employer A and they are the only ones that can definitively state under which license terms the code gets ...
The README of the GitHub project you linked has an "Attribution requirements" section:
As an open source project, attribution is critical from a legal, practical and motivational perspective in our opinion. The graphics are licensed under the CC-BY 4.0 which has a pretty good guide on best practices for attribution.
However, we consider the guide ...
There is a concept called database right. I am not sure whether this would apply in your case though - the idea behind database rights is to protect investment in creating the database, but if a user of your program creates the database by running it, you haven't invested anything into creating the database itself (for example, the user running the program ...
I would like to use the packages I required in a project for commercial use. What are my obligations regarding the licenses? Are there any, as I've not required the non-permissive licensed modules directly?
When you redistribute NPM packages (or any package) you need to consider the chain of dependencies at full depth all the way down.
I provided a ...
In non-legal language, the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 are:
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.
Under these terms, creating a song that includes a CC-BY licensed sound effect exercises the Adapt right.
Without knowing more details about the software you want to build I would argue, that the music is only data used by your program. As such neither your program is a derivative work of the music, nor the other way around. This would mean, that you can freely chose the Free Software license you prefer for your project.
From the CC wiki page on attribution (emphasis mine):
Creator if supplied and attribution parties if designated in reasonable manner
This means that Carol will need to attribute to Bob if (and only if!) Bob so wishes. Bob can even demand not to be attributed if he wants to. Now what are these attribution parties?
Further on the page we read:
In the 1....
CC-BY still demands proper attribution. While some jurisdiction ask for that anyways, it is not everywhere the case. Public Domain (with sources included) or CC0 are the most permissive options. They demand basically nothing.
No, someone may not share your work licensed under CC BY without giving you the chance to request removal of (parts of) the attribution. If you as the owner ask the person using your work to change the attribution, they legally MUST!
However you do not need to give contact information to the owner, the CC-BY license would not "imply" anything, implying ...
The image in question is licensed under CC BY 2.0, which requires in section 4(b) [emphasis mine]:
You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if ...
The CC licenses – and copyright1 in general – allow the creator/artist/author to opt out of attribution. The creator can decide under which name or pseudonym they should be attributed, or whether they would prefer not to be associated with the work at all. For you, this might be a simple checkbox:
If you upload a photo, you agree to license it under the ...