New version of Debian summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Apr 3 16:13:44 EDT 2005
As per discussions here last weekend:
"2. **Waive attribution after request to remove references**. It
should be made explicit that if the Licensor requires that
references to them be removed, this excuses the licensee from the
requirements for attribution. A modification to section 4b might
[...] by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of
the Original Author if supplied *and no request has been made
to remove it*; [...]"
The above if from the file: ccsummary.txt linked to in your post.
In a country with "moral rights" this would not be possible and would in fact
be an illegal clause. (This is what I got from those discussions. Does debian
legal have an European lawyers that would care to comment for us?
"3. **Allow access-controlled private distribution**. The anti-DRM
clause should be changed to make it clear that the licensee can't
prevent others receiving the work from exercising the same rights
that the licensee has."
I think this may be a tough one. For instance, if someone is putting on a play
that has been licensed under CC BY-SA, should they, or should they not, be
able to prevent audio or video recordings? And how would restrictions on the
actors images play into this.
If a digital version is being distributed under DRM protection, would it be
good enough if a a blanket license was given to break the drm in this case?
Would it be good enough to provide a link to the same version in non-DRM
format? (Or provide such a version on request ala the GPL source offer.)
"You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
measures *that prevent the recipient from exercising the rights
instead of any technological measures, should this instead say any measures
whatsoever that would inhibit the "recipient" from exercising that same
rights as the licensee has.
For example, publically performing a BY-SA licensed work in a theatre that
will not allow video taping or photography. Again, how would such a license
deal with the normal model release forms that would normally be required when
photographing someone? Do these considerations need to be included in the
If not, an actors troup could put on plays, allow them to be filmed, but block
copying and distribution of the videos over non-copyright issues. Right?
all the best,
On Sunday 03 April 2005 01:15 pm, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I've made a new version of the Creative Commons license summary
> available here:
> This version has the following changes since version 3:
> * Changed "definition" to "criteria" per Francesco Poli.
> * Changed "1 million works" to "many works", and note that
> estimates range from tens of thousands to tens of millions.
> * Tried to modify the language for explaining why the anti-DRM
> clause and the trademark restrictions make it hard to call works
> available under this license Free.
> * Gave a reference for a CC representative stating that the
> trademark restrictions are not part of the license. This is one
> mailing-list post from July 2004; I'd be interested in seeing
> * Modified the recommendation for the anti-DRM clause.
> Comments welcome.
More information about the cc-licenses