\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

\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

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

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