}

\bigskip

\tutorialpartsplit{This tutorial}{This part of the tutorial} gives a

comprehensive explanation of the most popular free-as-in-freedom copyright

licenses for non-software works, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (``CC-BY-SA'', or sometimes just

``BY-SA'') -- with an emphasis on the current version 4.0 (``CC-BY-SA-4.0'').

Upon completion of this part of the tutorial, readers can expect

to have learned the following:

\begin{itemize}

  \item The history and role of copyleft licenses for non-software works.

  \item The differences between the GPL and CC-BY-SA, especially with respect to copyleft policy.

  \item The basic differences between CC-BY-SA versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 4.0.

  \item An understanding of how CC-BY-SA-4.0 implements copyleft.

  \item Where to find more resources about CC-BY-SA compliance.

\end{itemize}

% FIXME this list should be more aggressive, but material is not yet present

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% END OF ABSTRACTS SECTION

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% START OF COURSE

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\chapter{Freedom as in Free Culture, Documentation, Education...}

Critiques of copyright's role in concentrating power over and

making culture inaccessible have existed throughout the history

of copyright. Few contemporary arguments about ``copyright in the

digital age'' have not already been made in the 1800s or before.

Though one can find the occasional ad hoc ``anti-copyright'', ``no rights

reserved'', or pro-sharing statement accompanying a publication,

use of formalized public licenses for non-software works seems to

have begun only after the birth of the free software movement and of

widespread internet access among elite populations.

Although they have much older antecedents, contemporary movements

to create, share, and develop policy encouraging ``cultural

commons'', ``open educational resources'', ``open access

and desire to retain the ability to take legal action against people

who might modify its statements of opinion, FSF even developed a

non-GPL copyleft license specifically for documentation, the Free

Documentation License (FDL; which ceases to be free and thus is not

a copyleft if its ``invariant sections'' and similar features are

used);

  \item a large cultural gap and lack of population overlap between

free software and other movements has limited knowledge transfer and

abetted reinvention and relearning;

  \item the question of what constitutes source

(``preferred form of the work for making modifications'') for many

non-software works.

\end{itemize}

As a result, several copyleft licenses for non-software works were

developed, even prior to the existence of Creative Commons. These

include the aforementioned FDL (1998), Design Science License (1999),

Open Publication License (1999; like the FDL it has non-free options),

Free Art License (2000), Open Game License (2000; non-free options),

EFF Open Audio License (2001), LinuxTag Green OpenMusic License (2001;

non-free options) and the QING Public License (2002). Additionally

several copyleft licenses intended for hardware designs were proposed

starting in the late 1990s if not sooner (the GPL was then and is now

At the end of 2002 Creative Commons launched with 11 1.0 licenses

and a public domain dedication. The 11 licenses consisted of every

non-mutually exclusive combination of at least one of the Attribution

(BY), NoDerivatives (ND), NonCommercial (NC), and ShareAlike

(SA) conditions (ND and SA are mutually exclusive; NC and ND are

non-free). Three of those licenses were free (as was the public domain

dedication), two of them copyleft: CC-SA-1.0 and CC-BY-SA-1.0.

Creative Commons licenses with the BY condition were more popular, so the 5

without (including CC-SA) were not included in version 2.0 of the

licenses. Although CC-SA had some advocates, all who felt

very strongly in favor of free-as-in-freedom, its incompatibility

with CC-BY-SA (meaning had CC-SA been widely used, the copyleft pool

of works would have been further fragmented) and general feeling that

Creative Commons had created too many licenses led copyleft advocates who hoped to

leverage Creative Commons to focus on CC-BY-SA.

Creative Commons began with a small amount of funding and notoriety, but its

predecessors had almost none (FSF and EFF had both, but their entries

were not major focuses of those organizations), so Creative Commons licenses

(copyleft and non-copyleft, free and non-free) quickly came to

dominate the non-software public licensing space. The author of the

Open Publication License came to recommend using Creative Commons licenses, and the

EFF declared version 2.0 of the Open Audio License compatible with

CC-BY-SA and suggested using the latter. Still, at least one copyleft

license for ``creative'' works was released after Creative Commons launched: the

Against DRM License (2006), though it did not achieve wide adoption.

Finally a font-specific copyleft license (SIL Open Font License) was introduced

in 2005 (again the GPL, with a ``font exception'', was and is now

also used for fonts).

Although CC-BY-SA was used for licensing ``databases'' almost from

its launch, and still is, copyleft licenses specifically intended to be

used for databases were proposed starting from the mid-2000s. The most

prominent of those is the Open Database License (ODbL; 2009). As we

can see public software licenses following the subjection of software

to copyright, interest in public licenses for databases followed the

EU database directive mandating ``sui generis database rights'',

which began to be implemented in member state law starting from

1998. How CC-BY-SA versions address databases is covered below.

\subsection{Aside on share-alike non-free therefore non-copylefts}

Many licenses intended for use with non-software works include the

``share-alike'' aspect of copyleft: if adaptations are distributed,

to comply with the license they must be offered under the same terms.

But some (excluding those discussed above) do not grant users the

equivalent of all four software freedoms. Such licenses aren't

true copylefts, as they retain a prominent exclusive property

right aspect for purposes other than enforcing all four freedoms

for everyone. What these licenses create are ``semicommons'' or

mixed private property/commons regimes, as opposed to the commons

created by all free licenses, and protected by copyleft licenses. One

reason non-free public licenses might be common outside software, but

rare for software, is that software more obviously requires ongoing

or highly asymmetric contributor license agreements, multi-contributor

maintenance quickly creates an ``anticommons'' -- e.g., nobody has

adequate rights to use commercially.

These non-free share-alike licenses often aggravate freedom and

copyleft advocates as the licenses sound attractive, but typically

are confusing, probably do not help and perhaps stymie the cause of

freedom. There is an argument that non-free licenses offer conservative

artists, publishers, and others the opportunity to take baby steps,

and perhaps support better policy when they realize total control is

not optimal, or to eventually migrate to free licenses. Unfortunately

no rigorous analysis of any of these conjectures. The best that

can be done might be to promote education about and effective use

of free copyleft licenses (as this tutorial aims to do) such that

conjectures about the impact of non-free licenses become about as

interesting as the precise terms of proprietary software EULAs --

demand freedom instead.

In any case, some of these non-free share-alike licenses (also

watch out for aforementioned copyleft licenses with non-free and thus

non-copyleft options) include: Open Content License (1998), Free Music

Public License (2001), LinuxTag Yellow, Red, and Rainbow OpenMusic

Licenses (2001), Open Source Music License (2002), Creative Commons

NonCommercial-ShareAlike and Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Licenses (2002), Common Good Public License (2003), and Peer Production

License (2013). CC-BY-NC-SA is by far the most widespread of these,

and has been versioned with the other Creative Commons licenses, through the current

version 4.0 (2013).

\chapter{Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike}

The remainder of this tutorial

exclusively concerns the most widespread copyleft license intended

for non-software works, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike

(CC-BY-SA). But, there are actually many CC-BY-SA licenses -- 5

versions (6 if you count version 2.1, a bugfix for a few jurisdiction

``porting'' mistakes), ports to 60 jurisdictions -- 96 distinct

CC-BY-SA licenses in total. After describing CC-BY-SA and how it

differs from the GPL at a high level, we'll have an overview of the

various CC-BY-SA licenses, then a section-by-section walkthrough of

the most current and most clear of them -- CC-BY-SA-4.0.

CC-BY-SA allows anyone to share and adapt licensed material, for

any purpose, subject to providing credit and releasing adaptations

under the same terms. The preceding sentence is a severe abridgement

of the ``human readable'' license summary or ``deed'' provided by

Creative Commons at the canonical URL for one of the CC-BY-SA licenses

-- the actual license or ``legalcode'' is a click away. But this

abridgement, and the longer the summary provided by Creative Commons

are accurate in that they convey CC-BY-SA is a free, copyleft license.

\section{GPL and CC-BY-SA differences}

% FIXME this section ought refernence GPL portion of tutorial extensively

There are several differences between the GPL and CC-BY-SA that are

particularly pertinent to their analysis as copyleft licenses.