On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 21:24:45 +0200 Roberto wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:04:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > The reason is that the one-way compatibility mechanism of CC-by-sa v4.0 > > is not exceptionally clear, and, without that compatibility, the > > CC-by-sa v4.0 license itself has a number of controversial clauses > > (non-free, in my own personal opinion). > > CC-BY 4.0 (without SA) may be better than CC-BY-SA in that case, > according to the FSF it's compatible and accepted as a free license (for > content which is not a program). Actually, although the FSF [claims] that CC-by v4.0 is compatible with the GNU GPL, it does not explain how the restrictions found in CC-by v4.0 can be reconciled with the GNU GPL. [claims]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby> I asked the FSF to publish a reasoned analysis on this. I did so back in 2015, but nothing has been disclosed yet (as far as I know). :-( I am personally *not* convinced that CC-by v4.0 is GPL-compatible. Please note that the CC-by v4.0 has no explicit compatibility clause (contrary to CC-by-sa v4.0, which has a one-way compatibility mechanism)... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpMfO9RgWoEr.pgp
Description: PGP signature