And he switched it to CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0, a license that is grossly unsuitable for open source works.
A curious comment he put in the commit though, that's got me laughing.
Packaging is still **not** permitted, since it is effectively a
modified/derived work.
I guess he's super butthurt about having unofficial builds floating about and his work being packaged up by Linux distros and the like.
But he's also wrong and retarded, because you're now depending on the government to define "derivative work".
Building the code as intended, or distros making minor patches to fit their packaging system (i.e. to store the resources in /usr/share/) does not a derivative make in this case.
It is what copyright law instead defines as a "change of format".
For example, let's say I have an EBook in epub format that with a CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 license.
If I was to convert this into a PDF document, make substantial changes to the formatting so it looks nice as a PDF, as well as fix up some spelling issues I spot along the way, and add a credit to myself for doing this format change...
Were I to then release it to the public, I wouldn't be in violation of the license, because I had done here is primarily a change of format, not a derivative nor adaptation.
Likewise, compiling code into an executable is the same; a change of format.
Packaging that up, is again just a change of format.
CC FAQ said:
When I release my work under a CC license in one format (e.g., .pdf), can I restrict licensees from changing it to or using it in other formats?
No. CC licenses grant permission to use the licensed material in any media or format regardless of the format in which it has been made available. This is true even if you have applied a NoDerivatives license to your work.
Once a CC license is applied to a work in one format or medium, a licensee may use the same work in any other format or medium without violating the licensor’s copyright.
Can I take a CC-licensed work and use it in a different format?
Yes. When any of the six CC licenses is applied to material, licensees are granted permission to use the material as the license allows, whatever the media or format chosen by the user when it is used or distributed further. This is true even in our NoDerivatives licenses. This is one of a very few default rules established in our licenses, to harmonize what may be different outcomes depending on where CC-licensed material is reused and what jurisdiction’s copyright law applies.
This means, for example, that even if a creator distributes a work in digital format, you have permission to print and share a hard copy of the same work.
How do I know if a low-resolution photo and a high-resolution photo are the same work?
As with most copyright questions, it will depend on applicable law. Generally, to be different works under copyright law, there must be expressive or original choices made that make one work a separate and distinct work from another. The determination depends on the standards for copyright in the relevant jurisdiction.
Under U.S. copyright law, for example,
mechanical reproduction of a work into a different format is unlikely to create a separate, new work. Consequently,
digitally enhancing or changing the format of a work absent some originality, such as expressive choices made in the enhancement or encoding, will not likely create a separate work for copyright purposes. The creative bar is low, but it is not non-existent. Accordingly, in some jurisdictions releasing a photograph under a CC license will give the public permission to reuse the photograph in a different resolution.
EDIT: Just to emphasize how stupid the ND clause is for code and projects like this...
You're still allowed to fork the repo, but you're going to be extremely limited in what you can do in that repo beyond trivial fixes.
Even if your goal is ultimately to upstream your changes or the communal good, the licence prohibits you from authoring those in the first place; even sending a merge request is in violation.
The only way around this is to beg
stenzek and everyone else that qualifies as a copyright holder for permission to do this before you delve in.
I genuinely have no idea if he's even asked those others if they're okay with their work being re-licensed, so they could conceivably cause him massive headaches if he did this on a whim and they're feeling petty and vindictive about it.
This is a big a reason the large companies make you sign a "Contributor License Agreement" to reassign copyright of your contributions to them; it's precisely to avoid headaches like this when relicensing, and so there's only one source to ask for an exception, and not 114 people as is the case here.
