[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