Non-Attributive Copyleft License
I asked this on the IRC, but I didn't really expect to get a proper response there since it's a chat. Basically I've been wondering if there is such a thing as a copyleft license that does not require attribution.
The reason behind this is a discussion I had with a friend about trivial works which are often used in larger end-products. My idea is that it's annoying to have trivial works that require attribution, since attributing someone for such a small contribution can be quite annoying (especially when there are many such contributions). So being able to license works that don't require attribution for trivial works is somewhat desireable. However, as someone who supports copyleft and free culture I believe that these works should still enforce all derivatives to be free culture as well (something that CC0, for example, doesn't provide). Of course, making a no-attribution license copyleft is probably very problematic (end-product creators wish to have their works attributed), so perhaps one that makes attribution optional or allows for use of other copyleft licenses.
Basically, the point is a license where attribution is not necessary (like in CC0) but all derivative works must be labelled likewise.
Anyone know of anyting?
For instance, the MIT license says:
I interpret this as saying that the derived product only must attribute the original in the form of this disclaimer, which includes the original copyright notice. I can't see how a copyleft license would work WITHOUT requiring inclusion of a disclaimer, and the copyright notice does not seem particularly intrusive (compared with the disclaimer without the copyright). Also, I think inclusion of the copyright line clearly establishes an interested party who may then have legal ground to fight violations of the license terms.
As more people contribute, I believe that you would just list all their names in the <copyright holders> line, which may get long, but is not really up-front in your face.
Don't the CC licenses let you choose which parts to use?
In this case, you just have CC-SA (share-alike) without the BY (attribution).
MIT is far from what I'm looking for, in fact, it requires attribution (http://choosealicense.com/licenses/) and is not copyleft.
I would imagine that a copyleft license such as this is somewhat possible considering that you can still prove a work is yours even if the other party does not include a copyright notice (basic copyright infringement case can demonstrate this).
In my case I'm thinking about using such a license for trivial art of mine. Mostly because I don't care about them having to include my copyright on everything but I want their work to be copylefted to keep all derivatives free culture.
"Sharing is good, and with digital technology, sharing is easy." - Richard M. Stallman
Happy hacking!
Sadly no. If they did that would be amazing. However, that does make me wonder if such a license could be created using the CC licenses as a sort of template, using certain parts and removing others.
"Sharing is good, and with digital technology, sharing is easy." - Richard M. Stallman
Happy hacking!
Yeah, sadly there is no CC license with just the SA and no BY. I suspect the attribution is legally integral to the viral nature of Share Alike. Or at least it seems integral for enforcing the SA clauses, as if saying "share derivatives of this under the same terms" has little legal authority without a specific person to hold and enforce that authority.
--Medicine StormI would imagine that it would be possible since there are software licenses, for example, that basically say that you can use other copyleft licenses instead of that one license.
"Sharing is good, and with digital technology, sharing is easy." - Richard M. Stallman
Happy hacking!
If the work is trivial then why does copyleft even matter?
If a person can readily reproduce it themselves then they aren't likely to be convinced to submit to copyleft if they aren't already so inclined.
Red warrior needs caffeine badly.
>Basically I've been wondering if there is such a thing as a copyleft license that does not require attribution.
You can get sued for not crediting regardless of the license.
Always credit. Countries have laws and legal traditions against failing to credit the originator of the work (unless the author published his work anonymous)
Well, suing has no real bounds. There are people trying to sue for any dumb thing even if they have no legal basis, and certainly no chance of winning if it went to court. It's a legal right to make a donkey of yourself if you want to.
If you choose a license (or make one) that specifically does not include attribution, then you'd lose any suit trying to enforce attribution.
Early on, they tried to make Creative Commons licenses that didn't require attribution. Nobody wanted to use those versions. Nobody. So they simply gave up on maintaining yet another set.