[cc-community] Being called a thief for using CC
Miguel Angel Barrera
mabarrera70 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 16 12:53:01 EST 2008
> As of 15:10 GMT Feb 16 2008 , the license on Observatorio claims a
> license of a 'creative commons type' ("tipo Creative Commons") with two
> alterations. My spanish is not quite good enough to understand. I have
> no idea if the alterations have been added since this whole thing began
It was added after this whole thing began, and as a result of it.
Which could be argued that such addition cannot be done, since CC
licenses are perpetual and cannot be conditioned to additional
clauses, etc., but that just adds to the load of things this person is
doing to interpret the license however he likes :-(
> however. As far as I can tell the alteracions seek to clarify or
> extend the meaning of 'commercial' and 'attribution' right? THey wish to
> specify that 'commercial' includes having banners, user registry, or
> announcements from other webs?
Regardless, we aren't violating any of those things either. Our site
allows user registration, but it's not a condition to access the
content, as you've been able to verify yourself.
> And require direct link to the original
> translation which might be difficult if the derivitave work is in a
> medium other than connected-web-site
This - and other things this person has done and undone - is mainly
meant to make it difficult for us to reuse their translations. I
honestly could just give up and close our site, but I also think this
makes a very good case
> Can peolpe just extend/alter CC licnes in this way and still use the
> name of the CC?
As I said before, my understanding is that when you use CC, that 's
the entire license and cannot contain amendments, modifications or
"special clauses". CC+ allows that, but as I understand it, with the
purpose of giving additional rights, not to revoke rights already
granted by the license. I might be wrong on this but this person
wasn't and isn't using CC+ anyway. What makes me furious is that we
used the rights we were given by the CC, and now we're being presented
as a thief to the community. This doesn't make people think twice when
they decide to license their work under CC, but does make people think
twice when they decide to copy something licensed under CC, which is
the exact opposite of what the CC tries to accomplish, IMHO.
Regards,
M.Angel
More information about the cc-community
mailing list