[opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

Darmath darmath at tpg.com.au
Wed Feb 24 17:10:23 PST 2010

Darmath wrote:
> Gigs wrote:
>> Darmath wrote:
>>> If I understand your comments in this regard correctly you appear to 
>>> be trying to suggest that because a recipient of a work covered by 
>>> the  CC-SA or other like license has agreed with Linden Labs that 
>>> they will not export a work that doesn't bare their name as a 
>>> creator the person who initially uploaded the content and 
>>> distributed it to the received is now in violation of the CC-SA.
>>> If the above is what you're trying to suggest then I must disagree 
>>> with you. But I will wait to see that the above is what you're 
>>> actually trying to assert before i respond as to why...
>> Person A creates content and releases it under CC-SA-By
>> Person B uploads this content to Second Life
>> Person B distributes the content to Person C
>> Person C now has additional terms imposed on them that restrict their 
>> exercise of the rights granted under CC-SA-By because of the TPV 
>> agreement.  Previously they could run any client with export 
>> capability to download the work in order to modify it.  Now they 
>> can't do that. Their rights to redistribute and modify under the 
>> CC-SA have been restricted which is a violation of the CC-SA license.
> When I first came across this topic it was 3am and I was on my way to 
> bed so you'll forgive me for not thinking my way entirely through the 
> CC-SA. Having considered the issue this morning somewhat fresh I would 
> agree that Person B may be in violation with that agreement but not 
> for the reason Gigs (Jason) had initially stated. Initially the 
> conclusion appeared to be based upon the following from the CC-SA:.
> "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the 
> terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to 
> exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the 
> License."
> Putting aside for the moment that I believe that the paragraph is 
> horribly drafted as a legal document and doesn't accord with its 
> intent in its wording as far as I'm concerned I don't believe you can 
> say that as between Person B and Person C, Person B offered or imposed 
> any terms on the new recipient licensee that curtails Person's C's 
> rights under the licence.  The simple fact is that Person B didn't 
> impose any terms on Person C or offer the Work to C on any terms that 
> were more restrictive than what the license does.
> The fact is that Person C would fall subject to obligations to a 
> fourth Person, Linden Labs (Person D)  a result of C's own agreement 
> with D  that they won't export that content from SL unless their named 
> as the creator. The fact that C's own agreement with a fourth party 
> means that they now have obligations upon them that interfere with 
> their rights under the license they entered into and acqured from B, 
> doesn't mean that Person B imposed more restrictive terms upon C. The 
> terms that restricted C were effectively imposed by Person D.
> I also think there is potentially a much more interesting analysis 
> that is capable of following in the circumstances of SL, with regard 
> to the exchange of the Work from B to C, and that is whether the 
> exchange can actually be regarded as one exchange between Person B and 
> C, mediated by a mutual agent in LL (Person D). Or alternatiely 
> whether two exchanges take place both of which falling subjectable to 
> the CC-SA or possibly other like agreements. In the latter scenario  
> the first exchange would take place between Person B and Person D (LL) 
> and Person C and Person D. One would however have to refer to the TOS 
> for SL to canvass that possibility.
> Putting the above aside the reason why I agree that Person B falls 
> into violation of the license from the following from the CC-SA. It 
> states that:
> "You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work 
> that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to 
> exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the 
> License."
> By introducing the content into an environment where it can't be 
> easily downloaded and shared with any person quite independently from 
> SL may very well be considered to constitute the a person applying a 
> technological measure to the Work that restricts the ability of the 
> recipient from exercising their rights under the license.
> But that is a fundamentally different from the person imposing terms 
> or offering the Work to the recipient on more restrictive terms which 
> is what the initial quotation was referring to.
> Kind regards
> Darren

More information about the opensource-dev mailing list