anelok: new and enhanced Y-Box (draft)

EdorFaus edorfaus at xepher.net
Fri Jan 17 22:26:09 EST 2014


On 01/17/2014 12:03 PM, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> EdorFaus wrote:
>> ... Although, hm. A bit of looking around shows that CC-BY-SA is not
>> compatible with the GNU GPL.
>
> Ah, what's the problem ?

Well, IANAL, so I'm not sure really, but [1] at least says so for 
CC-BY-SA v2, and the comments to the answer on [2] seems to say that 
this holds for v3 as well. I haven't really looked into it in very much 
detail though, so I suppose at least the latter could be wrong.

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa
[2]: 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5462305/is-creative-commons-attribution-3-0-compatible-with-gpl-v2


Or if you were asking why incompatibility is a problem, well, mostly 
just that it would make it hard to include parts of one in the other, 
which might possibly be useful for documentation? (Although I suppose 
such uses might fall under fair use or something? I don't really know.)

I'm not sure if it's really a significant issue in practice, and my 
search results also indicate many just ignore the issue and combine them 
anyway, whether or not that's technically legal in their case.


>> P.S. Things would be *so* much simpler if only everyone could use
>> CC0 instead of all these other licenses... Fat chance of that
>> happening though.
>
[snip reasons why we can't do that]

Yeah, that's pretty much precisely what I meant - it would be nice if we 
could, but in practice, we *can't*, so we won't. No matter how complex 
that makes things.

I do see that I wasn't very clear about that though, sorry about that.

It's basically the same line of thinking as I have with regards to the 
core tenet of communism. It's a rather nice-sounding idea, IMO - but it 
doesn't work in practice. We humans simply aren't built for it.

-Frode



More information about the discussion mailing list


interactive