Non-free Creative Commons licenses #630

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.

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"?

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.

@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"?

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.

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?

With the recent change of the ToS, I think this is more clear and decided, now:

1. Public repository content shall be made available under a copyright licence which gives all natural and legal persons the following rights in the content:

• the right to use the content for any purpose, including both commercial and non-commercial purposes;
• the right to make unlimited copies of the content and redistribute those copies to others, with or without charge;
• the right to examine the content and determine how it works and/or how it was made;
• the right to make their own modifications to the content, to use the content with those modifications privately;
• and the right to redistribute copies of the content which include their own modifications, with or without charge.

Copyright licences of this kind are referred to as ‘licences for free and open source software, free and open source hardware, or free cultural works’. Examples of such licences include those created or approved for free software projects by the Free Software Foundation, for open source projects by the Open Source Initiative, and for free cultural works by Creative Commons. Note, however, that the Creative Commons licences with Non-Commercial (NC) or No Derivatives (ND) restrictions are not licences for free cultural works and thus do not fulfil the licensing requirement.

As an exception to this requirement, works which primarily describe the personal opinions or experiences of the author, or which embody the unique personal creative spirit of the author, may be included in public repositories under a copyright licence which does not allow modification and/or commercial use, such as a Creative Commons licence with NC or ND restrictions. By including works with licences which do not allow commercial use on Codeberg, you additionally grant Codeberg e. V. a non-exclusive licence to use and distribute copies of the works for the purposes set down in § 2 (Purpose and tasks/Ziele und Aufgaben) of Codeberg e. V.’s bylaws (Satzung).

Public repository content may also be distributed with a declaration which entirely abandons copyright in the work to the public domain. Public repository content may also include works which are no longer covered by any copyright due to expiration. Crediting the original authors of public domain content is encouraged.

As an exception to this requirement, works which primarily describe the personal opinions or experiences of the author, or which embody the unique personal creative spirit of the author, may be included in public repositories under a copyright licence which does not allow modification and/or commercial use, such as a Creative Commons licence with NC or ND restrictions.

Question: Doesn't the "personal creative spirit" exception effectively nullify "the right to use the content for any purpose, including both commercial and non-commercial purposes" completely?

Because the way I read this exception, anyone could get away with posting -NC or even -ND content by simply claiming that their work "embodies their personal creative spirit". How are you going to prove them wrong?

This wording unfortunately is still kinda confusing. The text first claims that authors have to guarantee the right to use, only to then later turn around that they actually don't, as long they say the right magic words.

In other words, the policy kinda contradicts itself. It wants to make both sides happy (and fails): It both wants to allow -NC and -ND for authors yet still guarantee a "right to use" for users. This is impossible.

Pick one. (And I would prefer that -NC and -ND are not allowed because they oppose free software and free culture values.)

@Wuzzy wrote in #630 (comment):

Question: Doesn't the "personal creative spirit" exception effectively nullify "the right to use the content for any purpose, including both commercial and non-commercial purposes" completely?

[…] And I would prefer that -NC and -ND are not allowed because they oppose free software and free culture values.

I would have preferred that, too. But the majority of e.V. members thought different and the current formulation was agreed on by a member’s vote and discussed in length beforehand (there was also an option at least without NC licenses). Thus, let’s accept the choice the Codeberg e.V. members did (I will still publish my work as free work as long as I am not forced to don’t!) ;)