Non-free Creative Commons licenses #630

libreki commented 2022年06月01日 23:24:13 +02:00

It is unclear to me whether non-software works licensed under non-free Creative Commons licenses are allowed on Codeberg. The licensing page at https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/ says:

For documentation, writing and other non-code assets a Creative Commons (CC) licence can be used, but note that only the following CC licences are considered free [...]

Should this be interpreted as "any CC license is allowed, but the free ones should be preferred" or "only free CC licenses are allowed?" Presumably, it is the latter, as no non-free CC license is endorsed by FSF or OSI, aside from CC BY-ND for works stating viewpoints. However, the intent isn't immediately obvious.

It is unclear to me whether non-software works licensed under non-free Creative Commons licenses are allowed on Codeberg. The licensing page at https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/ says: > For documentation, writing and other non-code assets a Creative Commons (CC) licence can be used, but note that only the following CC licences are considered free [...] Should this be interpreted as "any CC license is allowed, but the free ones should be preferred" or "only free CC licenses are allowed?" Presumably, it is the latter, as no non-free CC license is endorsed by FSF or OSI, aside from CC BY-ND for works stating viewpoints. However, the intent isn't immediately obvious.

fnetX commented 2022年06月02日 10:29:42 +02:00

Codeberg is a place for Free Software and Content. As of the Terms of Use, only FSF- / OSI-approved Free Software licences are allowed. We don't always enforce this very strictly when violations are limited, but non-free CC licences are not free and not exactly welcome here.

Codeberg is a place for Free Software and Content. As of the Terms of Use, only FSF- / OSI-approved Free Software licences are allowed. We don't always enforce this very strictly when violations are limited, but non-free CC licences are not free and not exactly welcome here.

libreki commented 2022年06月02日 14:26:02 +02:00

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps the licensing page could be rephrased to make this more explicit, like "a free CC license can be used" instead of just "a CC license"?

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps the licensing page could be rephrased to make this more explicit, like "a free CC license can be used" instead of just "a CC license"?

Wuzzy commented 2022年06月03日 00:03:14 +02:00

Perhaps just enumerate the acceptable CC licenses, e.g. CC0, CC BY and CC BY-SA. (with version number). That should be the clearest.

Personally, I think free software also needs free documentation. Free software with non-free documentation just doesn't go well together. Wikipedia shows you can be very strict on such a policy and still succeed.

Perhaps just enumerate the acceptable CC licenses, e.g. CC0, CC BY and CC BY-SA. (with version number). That should be the clearest. Personally, I think free software also needs free documentation. Free software with non-free documentation just doesn't go well together. Wikipedia shows you can be very strict on such a policy and still succeed.

Ghost commented 2023年09月02日 23:31:16 +02:00

@Wuzzy, all: CC0/CC BY/CC BY-SA are neither FSF nor OSI approved AFAICS, off what can be derived that they might be "acceptable"?

@Wuzzy, all: CC0/CC BY/CC BY-SA are neither FSF nor OSI approved AFAICS, off what can be derived that they might be "acceptable"?

Wuzzy commented 2023年09月04日 09:19:40 +02:00

This is false. FSF explicitly approves of CC0, CC BY and CC BY-SA. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
But please read the notes on the page I linked because of the implications for software and license compability.
At least you're correct that OSI did not give an official approval but this does NOT imply rejection. Remember, these aren't software licenses as they should be in practice used for media files (CC0 might be fine tho).

Also, CC0, CC BY and CC BY-SA are compatible with Free Cultural Works which is more relevant IMHO. https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses

I and many free software projects use these all the time, they are fully compatible with free software AND open source values and it is ridiculous to imply otherwise.

The problem isn't CC0, CC BY and CC BY-SA. The problem is CC BY-NC, CC BY-ND, CC BY-NC-SA and CC BY-NC-ND. Including those in your software package, even for only one file, makes your package non-free. A software should not be considered free or open-source unless ALL of its files are libre. It's all-or-nothing.

This is false. FSF explicitly approves of CC0, CC BY and CC BY-SA. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html But please read the notes on the page I linked because of the implications for software and license compability. At least you're correct that OSI did not give an official approval but this does NOT imply rejection. Remember, these aren't software licenses as they should be in practice used for media files (CC0 might be fine tho). Also, CC0, CC BY and CC BY-SA are compatible with Free Cultural Works which is more relevant IMHO. https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses I and many free software projects use these all the time, they are fully compatible with free software AND open source values and it is ridiculous to imply otherwise. The problem isn't CC0, CC BY and CC BY-SA. The problem is CC BY-NC, CC BY-ND, CC BY-NC-SA and CC BY-NC-ND. Including those in your software package, even for only one file, makes your package non-free. A software should not be considered free or open-source unless ALL of its files are libre. It's all-or-nothing.

Wuzzy commented 2025年05月29日 12:46:32 +02:00

Oh, I just realized I misread the issue. Sorry.

So the real question just was whether Codeberg policy explicitly forbids the non-free CC licenses, or if it tolerates them. So based on the discussion, the answer is "explicitly forbid" via TOS.

I suggest to change the documentation section in question into the following:

For documentation, writing, and other non-code assets, a license approved for Free Cultural Works should be used (Here’s a list). Like for software, non-free licenses and proprietary software licenses are not permitted. The lack of a license is also not permitted.

Four popular acceptable licenses are:

• CC BY-SA (copyleft, requires attribution)
• GNU FDL (copyleft, requires attribution)
• CC BY (requires attribution)
• CC0 (public domain dedication)

Generally, the Creative Commons (CC) licenses are used for works of art, and the GNU FDL for documentation (if copyleft is desired).

A common beginner’s mistake is the false belief that CC is synonymous with free culture. It is not. Only the above listed CC licenses are compatible with free culture. For example, CC BY-ND is not acceptable on Codeberg because it forbids derivative works.

Like CC themselves, Codeberg recommends against using a CC license on code. Codeberg also recommends against using the GNU FDL on code.

Yes, I admit this changes the content of the text quite a bit, but I believe this text represents the spirit of Codeberg.

Most importantly, I made the prohibition of non-free licenses explicit.
Then I’ve mentioned GNU FDL because it’s software-related and used on Wikipedia. It’s simply because I think it’s quite popular, not because I personally like it.
I’ve generalized it to Free Cultural Works so it is no longer CC-specific. I added an explicit warning about non-free CC license because people just keep falling into this trap over and over and over again.

What do you think about the rewritten section?

Oh, I just realized I misread the issue. Sorry. So the real question just was whether Codeberg policy explicitly forbids the non-free CC licenses, or if it tolerates them. So based on the discussion, the answer is "explicitly forbid" via TOS. I suggest to change the documentation section in question into the following: > For documentation, writing, and other non-code assets, a license approved for *[Free Cultural Works](https://freedomdefined.org)* should be used ([Here’s a list](https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses)). Like for software, non-free licenses and proprietary software licenses are not permitted. The lack of a license is also not permitted. > > Four popular acceptable licenses are: > > * [CC BY-SA](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) (copyleft, requires attribution) > * [GNU FDL](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html) (copyleft, requires attribution) > * [CC BY](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) (requires attribution) > * [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) (public domain dedication) > > Generally, the [Creative Commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons) (CC) licenses are used for works of art, and the GNU FDL for documentation (if copyleft is desired). > > A common beginner’s mistake is the false belief that CC is synonymous with free culture. **It is not**. Only the above listed CC licenses are compatible with free culture. For example, [CC BY-ND](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) is **not** acceptable on Codeberg because it forbids derivative works. > > Like CC themselves, Codeberg recommends against using a CC license on code. Codeberg also recommends against using the GNU FDL on code. Yes, I admit this changes the content of the text quite a bit, but I believe this text represents the spirit of Codeberg. Most importantly, I made the prohibition of non-free licenses explicit. Then I’ve mentioned GNU FDL because it’s software-related and used on Wikipedia. It’s simply because I think it’s quite popular, not because I personally like it. I’ve generalized it to Free Cultural Works so it is no longer CC-specific. I added an explicit warning about non-free CC license because people just keep falling into this trap over and over and over again. What do you think about the rewritten section?