the issue with giving legal advice is that different locations around the world have different lawsa great example is that the US has something called fair use however in other countries do not necessarily have this
There is no news on it because the suituation has barely changed, there has always been the wording about "open source" and "separate license", apple never had really any intention of not allowing open source stuff in the apple store, the GPL guys just came to a semi resonable conclusion because the "in addition to" wording.
In all reality I wouldn't expect any judge to hold up the FSF's interpertation, however that said they did come to the right conclusion because there is a chance, albet a small one, a judge could have seen in the same way and they should play the game as careful as possible.
Basically they said "there is a chance of there being a problem so we cant say there is no issue", and creative commons hung there hat on that due to there political anti-DRM crusade.
Apple removed the "in addition to" wording years ago, and realistically as quickly as was possible for a company of there size, changing legal wording is something a company like Apple cant do overnight. This wasnt really a case of "winning" the fight, but a suituation existing that was never the original intention anyways of any party and it just taking some time to sort out, that said the FSF hasnt re-evaluated the new liscenses for other potantal issues in 4 years.
The -only- issue with Creative Commons in the apple store is there ambiguious wording in the liscense, which leaves both the artist exposed to potental usage they didnt want, as well as leaving users of CC works open to leagal ramifications, BUT FIGHT THE DRM! ya srlsy...
All this said there is one important thing to keep in mind, the GPL has a cure clause that protects you if you use the GPL work in an improper way, there is no such clause in CC. That means that you can use GPL works in the app store etc without fear of being sued, and if the author doesnt like it then they can have it taken down, (assuming you dont want to argue and fight it in court about it being a legal use under the liscense) however CC offers you no such protection and you could be sued from day one and hope that you win your day in court.
Honestly more then anything else CC says you cant use them on the apple store because you cant use the GPL, even tho the wording is different and the meaning isnt the same.
More of a STICK TOGETHER PEOPLE FIGHT THE POWER then a real issue.
CC explicitly allows you to make "technological modifications" ie putting your cc art into a .zip (ios .app file)
Teh big issue comes in where apple says you can only download 10 copies etc etc, however creative commons (unlike the GPL) does not require you to provide the source or any number of copy's even one, as such allowing you to download it 10 times is completely within compliance as you are not limited AFTER you download it. Apple also says you cant transfer or decompile the source however the exact wording has one special clause.
=====
You may not copy (except as expressly permitted by this license and the Usage Rules), decompile, reverse-engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works of the Licensed Application, any updates, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent that any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by the licensing terms governing use of any open-sourced components included with the Licensed Application). Any attempt to do so is a violation of the rights of the Licensor and its licensors. If you breach this restriction, you may be subject to prosecution and damages.
=====
They actually even say that you can do it, if its open source...
Basically the long story short is that legally there is very little reason you -cant- use Creative Commons works on the apple store, unlike the GPL as it provides a few specific things
1) with Creative commons you have the EXPLICIT right to repackage in another form INCLUDING technical modifications EVEN DRM.
For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)(4) never produces Adapted Material.
If its not adapted material it doesn't get the Creative Commons virus basically. As such packaging something in a unreadable encrypted format it totally legit, while ios app's are simply a .zip which is even less restrictive.
2) You are allowed to LEGALLY decompile the zip into a readable format IF ITS OPEN SOURCE (unless Creative Commons isnt open source ^.^)
So then why isnt the GPL ok but Creative Commons is (or should be)? Its good ol 2(a)(4) in Creative Commons, the GPL doesnt have any similer language that allows you to do -anything- so long as its repackaging it.
Question 1: But wait apple says you cant liscense under any other rights then what they say! "You may not rent, lease, lend, sell, redistribute or sublicense the Licensed Application."
Answer: Not entirely true, they make an exception for open source copying, its just not enough to get around the tivioisation clause in the GPL however creative commons doesnt work in the same way
Question 2: what about apple's "unless a Product is accompanied by a separate license agreement, in which case the terms of that separate license agreement will govern"
Answer: um duh, pretty clear there your own liscense overrides apples so long as you include it
Answer: I may be a crackpot but that post is years old, the liscense no longer includes the key " in addition to" clause, as such its entirely possible the GPL is compatible at this point and time.
A GREAT example of the problem is this, the apple app store packages the art inside a .app file, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE ART IN ANY WAY, an .app file is a zip with a changed extention, however because there is a text file inside the zip that the binary NOT the ART reads and uses as DRM you cant use CC art in the app store???
huh?
As such they interperate that if a binary uses or reads the art it must be covered under CC as well, that or there just crazy, i personally lean twords the latter...
'The restriction on DRM in CC-BY was relatively unknown until recently, and has come as a surprise to many artists on OGA' bit. Please share some info. or links which tell about the matter a bit more. - bart
It was not shown on the deed until recently, so people would just read the deed and not know about the restriction.
the issue with giving legal advice is that different locations around the world have different lawsa great example is that the US has something called fair use however in other countries do not necessarily have this
That is actually the opposite of what CC says, they say that the code is a derivitive work, however the consensus of other people is that it is not.
There is no news on it because the suituation has barely changed, there has always been the wording about "open source" and "separate license", apple never had really any intention of not allowing open source stuff in the apple store, the GPL guys just came to a semi resonable conclusion because the "in addition to" wording.
In all reality I wouldn't expect any judge to hold up the FSF's interpertation, however that said they did come to the right conclusion because there is a chance, albet a small one, a judge could have seen in the same way and they should play the game as careful as possible.
Basically they said "there is a chance of there being a problem so we cant say there is no issue", and creative commons hung there hat on that due to there political anti-DRM crusade.
Apple removed the "in addition to" wording years ago, and realistically as quickly as was possible for a company of there size, changing legal wording is something a company like Apple cant do overnight. This wasnt really a case of "winning" the fight, but a suituation existing that was never the original intention anyways of any party and it just taking some time to sort out, that said the FSF hasnt re-evaluated the new liscenses for other potantal issues in 4 years.
The -only- issue with Creative Commons in the apple store is there ambiguious wording in the liscense, which leaves both the artist exposed to potental usage they didnt want, as well as leaving users of CC works open to leagal ramifications, BUT FIGHT THE DRM! ya srlsy...
All this said there is one important thing to keep in mind, the GPL has a cure clause that protects you if you use the GPL work in an improper way, there is no such clause in CC. That means that you can use GPL works in the app store etc without fear of being sued, and if the author doesnt like it then they can have it taken down, (assuming you dont want to argue and fight it in court about it being a legal use under the liscense) however CC offers you no such protection and you could be sued from day one and hope that you win your day in court.
Honestly more then anything else CC says you cant use them on the apple store because you cant use the GPL, even tho the wording is different and the meaning isnt the same.
More of a STICK TOGETHER PEOPLE FIGHT THE POWER then a real issue.
CC explicitly allows you to make "technological modifications" ie putting your cc art into a .zip (ios .app file)
Teh big issue comes in where apple says you can only download 10 copies etc etc, however creative commons (unlike the GPL) does not require you to provide the source or any number of copy's even one, as such allowing you to download it 10 times is completely within compliance as you are not limited AFTER you download it. Apple also says you cant transfer or decompile the source however the exact wording has one special clause.
=====
You may not copy (except as expressly permitted by this license and the Usage Rules), decompile, reverse-engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works of the Licensed Application, any updates, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent that any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by the licensing terms governing use of any open-sourced components included with the Licensed Application). Any attempt to do so is a violation of the rights of the Licensor and its licensors. If you breach this restriction, you may be subject to prosecution and damages.
=====
They actually even say that you can do it, if its open source...
Basically the long story short is that legally there is very little reason you -cant- use Creative Commons works on the apple store, unlike the GPL as it provides a few specific things
1) with Creative commons you have the EXPLICIT right to repackage in another form INCLUDING technical modifications EVEN DRM.
For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)(4) never produces Adapted Material.
If its not adapted material it doesn't get the Creative Commons virus basically. As such packaging something in a unreadable encrypted format it totally legit, while ios app's are simply a .zip which is even less restrictive.
2) You are allowed to LEGALLY decompile the zip into a readable format IF ITS OPEN SOURCE (unless Creative Commons isnt open source ^.^)
So then why isnt the GPL ok but Creative Commons is (or should be)? Its good ol 2(a)(4) in Creative Commons, the GPL doesnt have any similer language that allows you to do -anything- so long as its repackaging it.
Question 1: But wait apple says you cant liscense under any other rights then what they say! "You may not rent, lease, lend, sell, redistribute or sublicense the Licensed Application."
Answer: Not entirely true, they make an exception for open source copying, its just not enough to get around the tivioisation clause in the GPL however creative commons doesnt work in the same way
Question 2: what about apple's "unless a Product is accompanied by a separate license agreement, in which case the terms of that separate license agreement will govern"
Answer: um duh, pretty clear there your own liscense overrides apples so long as you include it
Question 3: but https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforce... says your a crackpot!
Answer: I may be a crackpot but that post is years old, the liscense no longer includes the key " in addition to" clause, as such its entirely possible the GPL is compatible at this point and time.
A GREAT example of the problem is this, the apple app store packages the art inside a .app file, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE ART IN ANY WAY, an .app file is a zip with a changed extention, however because there is a text file inside the zip that the binary NOT the ART reads and uses as DRM you cant use CC art in the app store???
huh?
As such they interperate that if a binary uses or reads the art it must be covered under CC as well, that or there just crazy, i personally lean twords the latter...
@shirish
'The restriction on DRM in CC-BY was relatively unknown until recently, and has come as a surprise to many artists on OGA' bit. Please share some info. or links which tell about the matter a bit more. - bart
It was not shown on the deed until recently, so people would just read the deed and not know about the restriction.
@mdwh
Creative Commons interpurates the liscense in that way, thats part of the problem.
@Blender
according to the liscense, that is correct, sort of, its ambiguious...
I dont think thats what artists want but thats what they are doing, the ambiguity leaves it open to interpuration.
seems for me when i use collect into it works properly, however I cant seem to re-click on the - sign to remove a piece of art
Hey it was easy!
Bart change the code from
to
It will create a "Download" button that will download the file rather then link it.
Note: The download attribute is not supported in Internet Explorer, Safari or Opera 12 and earlier versions so I hide it if it doesnt exist.
Humm I think we could add a "Download" button pretty easy to the site I may look into that if i get a chance...
if you want a prebuilt drupal module you can use https://drupal.org/project/plupload its using a older ver of plupload but they working on it
I just figured a .js was easier as it shouldnt be that hard to use it with OGA (knock on wood) :D
Pages