[cc-community] CC needs a default form of attribution?
Terry Hancock
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Mon Apr 28 16:16:38 EDT 2008
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> "Attribution. You must credit the author and/or designated
> organization by name (but not in any way that suggests that they
> endorse you or your use of the work); note the title of the work; and
> give the URI and/or text of any copyright notices. If you change the
> work, you must note the changes."
>
> Any feedback on that? I'll see what is thought of it internally.
Necessarily, anything in the deed must sacrifice accuracy for brevity,
and it's possible that this one pushes too far towards accuracy and
sacrifices too much brevity.
However, I personally like it a lot better.
OTOH, *I* would just read the full license. To me, the "deed" is like an
advertisement:
For people choosing how to release their own work, it says what the
general intent of the license is, so they can decide whether it's worth
reading the whole thing to see if it fits their needs.
It also serves as a quick-look for anyone using your work, to see
whether they are going to be able to do what they want with it. IOW, is
it worth their buy-in to review your work, read the license, and
understand what it means to them?
But anyone who's actually releasing work under a CC license, and anyone
actually using work under the license MUST be expected to read the whole
thing. I don't really buy the "lawyers-eyes-only" view of the license texts.
Of course, this is me. I'm the kind of person who reads every contract I
sign. I realize a lot of people don't. OTOH, IMHO people who don't read
contracts deserve what they get themselves into.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-community
mailing list