From npaharia at hotmail.com Wed Sep 11 22:32:27 2002 From: npaharia at hotmail.com (Neeru Paharia) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:32:27 -0700 Subject: test Message-ID: _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From GBrown at law.stanford.edu Sun Sep 15 16:53:46 2002 From: GBrown at law.stanford.edu (Glenn Brown) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:53:46 -0700 Subject: test Message-ID: testing testing From GBrown at law.stanford.edu Tue Sep 17 20:02:23 2002 From: GBrown at law.stanford.edu (Glenn Brown) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:02:23 -0700 Subject: (cc) new drafts of Creative Commons licenses Message-ID: Dear Friends of Creative Commons: Thank you very much for your thorough feedback and great questions about the draft Creative Commons licenses circulated this summer. Your input influenced a handful of significant changes and many fine-tunings, as I explain in detail in the materials linked from this message. Some of you -- potential content partners, the recently befriended -- are new to this process. Welcome, and we look forward to hearing your two cents this time around. This link, , will take you to an introduction to our second round of draft review, plus: 1) a memo summarizing your recent feedback and explaining changes in the new draft 2) the new license draft 3) a draft Public Domain Dedication 4) the draft Commons Deed 5) the information you need to participate in an archived email list Once more, the main URL: Password and username are embedded in the link. Guidelines and a timetable for review are included in the introduction page and memo. Thanks very much, and we look forward to more of your thought-provoking guidance. Glenn glenn at creativecommons.org licenses at creativecommons.org --------------------------------- Glenn Otis Brown Executive Director (cc) Creative Commons glenn at creativecommons.org t +1.650.723.7572 f +1.650.723.8440 From GBrown at law.stanford.edu Tue Sep 17 20:05:44 2002 From: GBrown at law.stanford.edu (Glenn Brown) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:05:44 -0700 Subject: (cc) new drafts of Creative Commons licenses Message-ID: Dear Friends of Creative Commons: Thank you very much for your thorough feedback and great questions about the draft Creative Commons licenses circulated this summer. Your input influenced a handful of significant changes and many fine-tunings, as I explain in detail in the materials linked from this message. Some of you -- potential content partners, the recently befriended -- are new to this process. Welcome, and we look forward to hearing your two cents this time around. This link, , will take you to an introduction to our second round of draft review, plus: 1) a memo summarizing your recent feedback and explaining changes in the new draft 2) the new license draft 3) a draft Public Domain Dedication 4) the draft Commons Deed 5) the information you need to participate in an archived email list Once more, the main URL: Password and username are embedded in the link. Guidelines and a timetable for review are included in the introduction page and memo. Thanks very much, and we look forward to more of your thought-provoking guidance. Glenn glenn at creativecommons.org licenses at creativecommons.org --------------------------------- Glenn Otis Brown Executive Director (cc) Creative Commons glenn at creativecommons.org t +1.650.723.7572 f +1.650.723.8440 From GBrown at law.stanford.edu Tue Sep 17 20:06:34 2002 From: GBrown at law.stanford.edu (Glenn Brown) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:06:34 -0700 Subject: (cc) new drafts of Creative Commons licenses Message-ID: Dear Friends of Creative Commons: Thank you very much for your thorough feedback and great questions about the draft Creative Commons licenses circulated this summer. Your input influenced a handful of significant changes and many fine-tunings, as I explain in detail in the materials linked from this message. Some of you -- potential content partners, the recently befriended -- are new to this process. Welcome, and we look forward to hearing your two cents this time around. This link, , will take you to an introduction to our second round of draft review, plus: 1) a memo summarizing your recent feedback and explaining changes in the new draft 2) the new license draft 3) a draft Public Domain Dedication 4) the draft Commons Deed 5) the information you need to participate in an archived email list Once more, the main URL: Password and username are embedded in the link. Guidelines and a timetable for review are included in the introduction page and memo. Thanks very much, and we look forward to more of your thought-provoking guidance. Glenn glenn at creativecommons.org licenses at creativecommons.org --------------------------------- Glenn Otis Brown Executive Director (cc) Creative Commons glenn at creativecommons.org t +1.650.723.7572 f +1.650.723.8440 From tompoe at renonevada.net Tue Sep 17 21:24:47 2002 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tompoe at renonevada.net) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:24:47 -0700 Subject: commons deed question Message-ID: <3D87D5DF.1060800@renonevada.net> Hi: Under the list headed by "You must:" "- Ask the copyright holder's permission to the terms above (flanked by icons) do not allow." Can you think of some way to clarify that for viewers like myself that can't grasp what the sentence is saying? Thanks, Tom Poe Open Studios Reno, Nv -- http://www.studioforrecording.org/ http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/ http://www.studioforrecording.org/mt/Pubdomain_Bread/ -- Please go to EFF.org page at http://www.eff.org and register for the TAKE ACTION page. If you can donate $5, that'll help, too -- From glenn at creativecommons.org Tue Sep 17 21:33:13 2002 From: glenn at creativecommons.org (Glenn Otis Brown) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:33:13 -0700 Subject: commons deed question In-Reply-To: <3D87D5DF.1060800@renonevada.net> Message-ID: <98F2E938-CAA6-11D6-96C3-00039390FE2C@creativecommons.org> Good question, Tom. Looks like a typo/editing error to me. Nice catch. It should read something like "Ask the copyright holder's permission to do anything that the terms above (flanked by icons) do not allow." Of all the documents you see on the pword-protected site, the Deed could stand the most revision. We've been focusing on the licenses for now. Thanks for catching that. Glenn On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 06:24 PM, tompoe at renonevada.net wrote: > Hi: Under the list headed by "You must:" > "- Ask the copyright holder's permission to the terms above (flanked > by icons) do not allow." > > Can you think of some way to clarify that for viewers like myself that > can't grasp what the sentence is saying? > Thanks, > Tom Poe > Open Studios > Reno, Nv > -- > http://www.studioforrecording.org/ > http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/ > http://www.studioforrecording.org/mt/Pubdomain_Bread/ > -- > Please go to EFF.org page at http://www.eff.org > and register for the TAKE ACTION page. > If you can donate $5, that'll help, too > -- > > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Glenn Otis Brown glenn at creativecommons.org Executive Director t +1.650.723.7572 (cc) creativecommons f +1.650.723.8440 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1630 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20020917/edd4acae/attachment.bin From glenn at creativecommons.org Tue Sep 17 23:11:31 2002 From: glenn at creativecommons.org (Glenn Otis Brown) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 20:11:31 -0700 Subject: Question on license options In-Reply-To: <554AAFCA2635D5119EDA00B0D0AAD4E302C590E6@sobscsr1.chh.co.nz> Message-ID: <54701408-CAB4-11D6-822C-00039390FE2C@creativecommons.org> > It's not totally clear to me what the situation is if I want to > license a > work for free reproduction/distribution provided that the > person/organisation reproducing the work does not profit from the > reproduction/distribution, but also want to allow commercial use > provided > that I receive royalties from the commercial use. Is there a license > combination that allows for this? > Good question, Mike. I'm cc-ing our public archived email list, licenses at creativecommons.org, so that there is a record of this question. Our noncommercial option prevents licensees from making a profit off of selling your work -- without first asking and striking a separate deal with you. Say you put a photograph out under a noncommercial license. Then say my for-profit magazine wanted to use it as a cover shot. We would be required to strike a separate one-off deal with you to get that permission. The structure is basically what you describe: > In other words, if you aren't making any money out of it, distribute > it all > you like, but if you are, I want a share. Note that exceptions to the noncommercial provision must be negotiated between you and the would-be moneymaking licensee, ad hoc. It would be mighty complicated to write a noncommercial provision that somehow made such "payback when profit" an automatic feature of the CC license. Hope this helps. Please remember to reply-to-all so this winds up back on the licenses@ list. Thanks, Glenn ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Glenn Otis Brown glenn at creativecommons.org Executive Director t +1.650.723.7572 (cc) creativecommons f +1.650.723.8440 From Mike.ReevesMcMillan at oxygenforbusiness.com Tue Sep 17 23:15:31 2002 From: Mike.ReevesMcMillan at oxygenforbusiness.com (Reeves-McMillan, Mike) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:15:31 +1200 Subject: Question on license options Message-ID: <554AAFCA2635D5119EDA00B0D0AAD4E302C590E9@sobscsr1.chh.co.nz> That was pretty much as I expected, and thanks for the quick response. The question that raises, though, is if I put it out under a noncommercial license, how does the magazine (in your scenario) know that I am open to negotiating a commercial deal? When they search for resources that are commercially available, mine won't show up. > -----Original Message----- > From: Glenn Otis Brown [SMTP:glenn at creativecommons.org] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:12 PM > To: Reeves-McMillan, Mike > Cc: licenses at creativecommons.org > Subject: Re: Question on license options > > > It's not totally clear to me what the situation is if I want to > > license a > > work for free reproduction/distribution provided that the > > person/organisation reproducing the work does not profit from the > > reproduction/distribution, but also want to allow commercial use > > provided > > that I receive royalties from the commercial use. Is there a license > > combination that allows for this? > > > > > Good question, Mike. I'm cc-ing our public archived email list, > licenses at creativecommons.org, so that there is a record of this > question. > > Our noncommercial option prevents licensees from making a profit off of > selling your work -- without first asking and striking a separate deal > with you. Say you put a photograph out under a noncommercial license. > Then say my for-profit magazine wanted to use it as a cover shot. We > would be required to strike a separate one-off deal with you to get > that permission. The structure is basically what you describe: > > > In other words, if you aren't making any money out of it, distribute > > it all > > you like, but if you are, I want a share. > > Note that exceptions to the noncommercial provision must be negotiated > between you and the would-be moneymaking licensee, ad hoc. It would be > mighty complicated to write a noncommercial provision that somehow made > such "payback when profit" an automatic feature of the CC license. > > > Hope this helps. Please remember to reply-to-all so this winds up back > on the licenses@ list. > > Thanks, > > Glenn > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Glenn Otis Brown > glenn at creativecommons.org > Executive Director > t +1.650.723.7572 > (cc) creativecommons f > +1.650.723.8440 > DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message and then please destroy. Oxygen Business Solutions is not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any attachments after sending by Oxygen Business Solutions. We use virus scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment. From glenn at creativecommons.org Tue Sep 17 23:29:09 2002 From: glenn at creativecommons.org (Glenn Otis Brown) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 20:29:09 -0700 Subject: Question on license options In-Reply-To: <554AAFCA2635D5119EDA00B0D0AAD4E302C590E9@sobscsr1.chh.co.nz> Message-ID: Another good question. Your resource is commercially available, just not by default. Permission is required to override that default. A lot of what this comes down to is good information: part of our job is to make clear that "no noncommercial uses" really means "no commercial uses unless you ask" -- which in fact is indistinguishable from any old work that is fully copyrighted. You're not imposing any greater restriction on your work by choosing "noncommercial" than copyright imposes. You're just making clear that that's not a right you _have_ given up . . . Does that help? I think your question highlights our need to do a better job explaining all this, so thank you again. Glenn On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 08:15 PM, Reeves-McMillan, Mike wrote: > That was pretty much as I expected, and thanks for the quick response. > > The question that raises, though, is if I put it out under a > noncommercial > license, how does the magazine (in your scenario) know that I am open > to > negotiating a commercial deal? When they search for resources that are > commercially available, mine won't show up. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Glenn Otis Brown [SMTP:glenn at creativecommons.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:12 PM >> To: Reeves-McMillan, Mike >> Cc: licenses at creativecommons.org >> Subject: Re: Question on license options >> >>> It's not totally clear to me what the situation is if I want to >>> license a >>> work for free reproduction/distribution provided that the >>> person/organisation reproducing the work does not profit from the >>> reproduction/distribution, but also want to allow commercial use >>> provided >>> that I receive royalties from the commercial use. Is there a license >>> combination that allows for this? >>> >> >> >> Good question, Mike. I'm cc-ing our public archived email list, >> licenses at creativecommons.org, so that there is a record of this >> question. >> >> Our noncommercial option prevents licensees from making a profit off >> of >> selling your work -- without first asking and striking a separate deal >> with you. Say you put a photograph out under a noncommercial license. >> Then say my for-profit magazine wanted to use it as a cover shot. We >> would be required to strike a separate one-off deal with you to get >> that permission. The structure is basically what you describe: >> >>> In other words, if you aren't making any money out of it, distribute >>> it all >>> you like, but if you are, I want a share. >> >> Note that exceptions to the noncommercial provision must be negotiated >> between you and the would-be moneymaking licensee, ad hoc. It would >> be >> mighty complicated to write a noncommercial provision that somehow >> made >> such "payback when profit" an automatic feature of the CC license. >> >> >> Hope this helps. Please remember to reply-to-all so this winds up >> back >> on the licenses@ list. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Glenn >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> -------------------- >> Glenn Otis Brown >> glenn at creativecommons.org >> Executive Director >> t +1.650.723.7572 >> (cc) creativecommons f >> +1.650.723.8440 >> > > DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, > disclose or > use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail > that you > have received the message and then please destroy. Oxygen Business > Solutions is not > responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any > attachments after > sending by Oxygen Business Solutions. We use virus scanning software > but exclude all > liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any > attachment. > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Glenn Otis Brown glenn at creativecommons.org Executive Director t +1.650.723.7572 (cc) creativecommons f +1.650.723.8440 From Mike.ReevesMcMillan at oxygenforbusiness.com Tue Sep 17 23:26:59 2002 From: Mike.ReevesMcMillan at oxygenforbusiness.com (Reeves-McMillan, Mike) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:26:59 +1200 Subject: Question on license options Message-ID: <554AAFCA2635D5119EDA00B0D0AAD4E302C590EB@sobscsr1.chh.co.nz> Thanks, that does help, and thanks too for acknowledging that it needs to be made clearer to all concerned. As a former technical writer I know how hard it is to convey what is obvious to you so that it is also obvious to others. > -----Original Message----- > From: Glenn Otis Brown [SMTP:glenn at creativecommons.org] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:29 PM > To: Reeves-McMillan, Mike > Cc: licenses at creativecommons.org > Subject: Re: Question on license options > > Another good question. Your resource is commercially available, just > not by default. Permission is required to override that default. A > lot of what this comes down to is good information: part of our job is > to make clear that "no noncommercial uses" really means "no commercial > uses unless you ask" -- which in fact is indistinguishable from any old > work that is fully copyrighted. You're not imposing any greater > restriction on your work by choosing "noncommercial" than copyright > imposes. You're just making clear that that's not a right you _have_ > given up . . . Does that help? > > I think your question highlights our need to do a better job explaining > all this, so thank you again. > > Glenn > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 08:15 PM, Reeves-McMillan, Mike > wrote: > > > That was pretty much as I expected, and thanks for the quick response. > > > > The question that raises, though, is if I put it out under a > > noncommercial > > license, how does the magazine (in your scenario) know that I am open > > to > > negotiating a commercial deal? When they search for resources that are > > commercially available, mine won't show up. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Glenn Otis Brown [SMTP:glenn at creativecommons.org] > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:12 PM > >> To: Reeves-McMillan, Mike > >> Cc: licenses at creativecommons.org > >> Subject: Re: Question on license options > >> > >>> It's not totally clear to me what the situation is if I want to > >>> license a > >>> work for free reproduction/distribution provided that the > >>> person/organisation reproducing the work does not profit from the > >>> reproduction/distribution, but also want to allow commercial use > >>> provided > >>> that I receive royalties from the commercial use. Is there a license > >>> combination that allows for this? > >>> > >> > >> > >> Good question, Mike. I'm cc-ing our public archived email list, > >> licenses at creativecommons.org, so that there is a record of this > >> question. > >> > >> Our noncommercial option prevents licensees from making a profit off > >> of > >> selling your work -- without first asking and striking a separate deal > >> with you. Say you put a photograph out under a noncommercial license. > >> Then say my for-profit magazine wanted to use it as a cover shot. We > >> would be required to strike a separate one-off deal with you to get > >> that permission. The structure is basically what you describe: > >> > >>> In other words, if you aren't making any money out of it, distribute > >>> it all > >>> you like, but if you are, I want a share. > >> > >> Note that exceptions to the noncommercial provision must be negotiated > >> between you and the would-be moneymaking licensee, ad hoc. It would > >> be > >> mighty complicated to write a noncommercial provision that somehow > >> made > >> such "payback when profit" an automatic feature of the CC license. > >> > >> > >> Hope this helps. Please remember to reply-to-all so this winds up > >> back > >> on the licenses@ list. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Glenn > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> -- > >> -------------------- > >> Glenn Otis Brown > >> glenn at creativecommons.org > >> Executive Director > >> t +1.650.723.7572 > >> (cc) creativecommons f > >> +1.650.723.8440 > >> > > > > DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is > > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, > > disclose or > > use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail > > that you > > have received the message and then please destroy. Oxygen Business > > Solutions is not > > responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any > > attachments after > > sending by Oxygen Business Solutions. We use virus scanning software > > but exclude all > > liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any > > attachment. > > _______________________________________________ > > cc-licenses mailing list > > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > Glenn Otis Brown > glenn at creativecommons.org > Executive Director > t +1.650.723.7572 > (cc) creativecommons f > +1.650.723.8440 > DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail that you have received the message and then please destroy. Oxygen Business Solutions is not responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any attachments after sending by Oxygen Business Solutions. We use virus scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment. From glenn at creativecommons.org Tue Sep 17 23:33:09 2002 From: glenn at creativecommons.org (Glenn Otis Brown) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 20:33:09 -0700 Subject: Question on license options In-Reply-To: <554AAFCA2635D5119EDA00B0D0AAD4E302C590EB@sobscsr1.chh.co.nz> Message-ID: <5A3A59B0-CAB7-11D6-822C-00039390FE2C@creativecommons.org> No problem. This is very much a crucial question that many people care about, so I'm glad you prompted me to think harder about expressing that. On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 08:26 PM, Reeves-McMillan, Mike wrote: > Thanks, that does help, and thanks too for acknowledging that it needs > to be > made clearer to all concerned. As a former technical writer I know how > hard > it is to convey what is obvious to you so that it is also obvious to > others. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Glenn Otis Brown [SMTP:glenn at creativecommons.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:29 PM >> To: Reeves-McMillan, Mike >> Cc: licenses at creativecommons.org >> Subject: Re: Question on license options >> >> Another good question. Your resource is commercially available, just >> not by default. Permission is required to override that default. A >> lot of what this comes down to is good information: part of our job >> is >> to make clear that "no noncommercial uses" really means "no commercial >> uses unless you ask" -- which in fact is indistinguishable from any >> old >> work that is fully copyrighted. You're not imposing any greater >> restriction on your work by choosing "noncommercial" than copyright >> imposes. You're just making clear that that's not a right you _have_ >> given up . . . Does that help? >> >> I think your question highlights our need to do a better job >> explaining >> all this, so thank you again. >> >> Glenn >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 08:15 PM, Reeves-McMillan, Mike >> wrote: >> >>> That was pretty much as I expected, and thanks for the quick >>> response. >>> >>> The question that raises, though, is if I put it out under a >>> noncommercial >>> license, how does the magazine (in your scenario) know that I am open >>> to >>> negotiating a commercial deal? When they search for resources that >>> are >>> commercially available, mine won't show up. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Glenn Otis Brown [SMTP:glenn at creativecommons.org] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:12 PM >>>> To: Reeves-McMillan, Mike >>>> Cc: licenses at creativecommons.org >>>> Subject: Re: Question on license options >>>> >>>>> It's not totally clear to me what the situation is if I want to >>>>> license a >>>>> work for free reproduction/distribution provided that the >>>>> person/organisation reproducing the work does not profit from the >>>>> reproduction/distribution, but also want to allow commercial use >>>>> provided >>>>> that I receive royalties from the commercial use. Is there a >>>>> license >>>>> combination that allows for this? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Good question, Mike. I'm cc-ing our public archived email list, >>>> licenses at creativecommons.org, so that there is a record of this >>>> question. >>>> >>>> Our noncommercial option prevents licensees from making a profit off >>>> of >>>> selling your work -- without first asking and striking a separate >>>> deal >>>> with you. Say you put a photograph out under a noncommercial >>>> license. >>>> Then say my for-profit magazine wanted to use it as a cover shot. >>>> We >>>> would be required to strike a separate one-off deal with you to get >>>> that permission. The structure is basically what you describe: >>>> >>>>> In other words, if you aren't making any money out of it, >>>>> distribute >>>>> it all >>>>> you like, but if you are, I want a share. >>>> >>>> Note that exceptions to the noncommercial provision must be >>>> negotiated >>>> between you and the would-be moneymaking licensee, ad hoc. It would >>>> be >>>> mighty complicated to write a noncommercial provision that somehow >>>> made >>>> such "payback when profit" an automatic feature of the CC license. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hope this helps. Please remember to reply-to-all so this winds up >>>> back >>>> on the licenses@ list. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Glenn >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> -------------------- >>>> Glenn Otis Brown >>>> glenn at creativecommons.org >>>> Executive Director >>>> t +1.650.723.7572 >>>> (cc) creativecommons f >>>> +1.650.723.8440 >>>> >>> >>> DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is >>> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, >>> disclose or >>> use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail >>> that you >>> have received the message and then please destroy. Oxygen Business >>> Solutions is not >>> responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any >>> attachments after >>> sending by Oxygen Business Solutions. We use virus scanning software >>> but exclude all >>> liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any >>> attachment. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cc-licenses mailing list >>> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses >>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> -------------------- >> Glenn Otis Brown >> glenn at creativecommons.org >> Executive Director >> t +1.650.723.7572 >> (cc) creativecommons f >> +1.650.723.8440 >> > > DISCLAIMER: This electronic message together with any attachments is > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, do not copy, > disclose or > use the contents in any way. Please also advise us by return e-mail > that you > have received the message and then please destroy. Oxygen Business > Solutions is not > responsible for any changes made to this message and / or any > attachments after > sending by Oxygen Business Solutions. We use virus scanning software > but exclude all > liability for viruses or anything similar in this email or any > attachment. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Glenn Otis Brown glenn at creativecommons.org Executive Director t +1.650.723.7572 (cc) creativecommons f +1.650.723.8440 From reagle at w3.org Wed Sep 25 12:00:45 2002 From: reagle at w3.org (Joseph Reagle) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:00:45 -0400 Subject: [ipcommons] (cc) new drafts of Creative Commons licenses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200209251200.46644.reagle@w3.org> I didn't follow the first version and comments very closely, so some of my comments might have already been discussed. On Tuesday 17 September 2002 08:02 pm, Glenn Brown wrote: > 2) the new license draft > BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. I always like the GPL text on this point since it makes very clear the nature of the rights and license: 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. Perhaps CC could use a similar explanation? 4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions: The little "note to reviewers" was helpful to me in understanding these sections. I think perhaps a simple summary/motivation for each restriction would be of use to those other than reviewers (when the time comes). a. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform I presume there's a reason for calling out "digitally perform"? You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. Is this something the Licensor has control over? For instance, if I use such a work in a collection, and that collection is played within some DRM scheme that absent a "trust signature" refuses to let me print it, who is the licensor? The DRM provider? The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. On this point, I'm rather confused. What is permitted in a scenario where I take a fairly liberal CC image, combine it with less liberal licenses in a collective work (collage/montage), which is also protected/enforced by DRM? If one of the constituent licenses doesn't permit printing, is this saying that it should not "infect" the CC governed content? This requires a certain level of granularity in the DRM mechanism and that the constituent parts can even be separately rendered. Or, the montage/collage of CC image itself, as its own work, might have a restriction against printing. Does this *require* that while the collage will not be printed, the constituent parts *must* be printable or they can not be used at all? If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. I'm slightly confused about this in relation to term D. Is this a correct summary: D states that attribution must be given, but *if* derivative works are made the original author may ask their attribution be removed from the derivative work? If so, what is the scope of this obligation? Only current/future works, or this some obligation to alter/change existing works as well? Have you considered some text akin to, "The name and trademarks of copyright holders may NOT be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to the content." Attribution is important, but instead of later yanking that attribution, it might be better to ensure it's not used to misrepresent a relationship or quality from the start... From gdd at gdproducts.net Tue Sep 3 13:07:25 2002 From: gdd at gdproducts.net (gdproducts.net) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:07:25 Subject: ¹ºÂòÐÅÏ¢ Message-ID: <20030122050634.DA47720025@happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20020903/534ef188/attachment.htm