Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-it - [Cc-it] È uscita la versione 2.0 delle licenze CC

cc-it AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussione delle licenze Creative Commons

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Lorenzo De Tomasi <lorenzo.detomasi AT creativecommons.it>
  • To: cc-it AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Cc-it] È uscita la versione 2.0 delle licenze CC
  • Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:09:27 +0200

Inoltro il messaggio di Glenn Otis Brown alla lista ufficiale cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org.
Qualcuno potrebbe tradurlo?

Ciao,
Lorenzo

Inizio del messaggio inoltrato:

Da: "Glenn Otis Brown" <glenn AT creativecommons.org>
Data: Mer 26 Mag 2004 02:28:04 Europe/Rome
A: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Oggetto: 2.0
Rispondere-A: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>

Some of you are already on this, of course. Here's our post from today
explaining the changes.

--

Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses
2004-05-25
Glenn Otis Brown

Last night, after many months of gathering and processing great
feedback[1] from all of you[2], we turned on version 2.0 of the main
Creative Commons licenses. The 2.0 licenses are very similar to the
1.0 licenses -- in aim, in structure, and, by and large, in the text
itself. We've included, however, a few key improvements, thanks to
your input. A quick list of new features follows. All section numbers
refer to the Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 2.0[3] license.
(Corresponding section numbers may vary across licenses.)

***Attribution comes standard

Our web stats indicate that 97-98% of you choose Attribution, so we
decided to drop Attribution as a choice from our license menu[4] --
it's now standard. This reduces the number of licenses from eleven
possible to six and makes the license selection user interface that
much simpler. Important to remember: Attribution can always be
disavowed upon licensor request, and pseudonymous and anonymous
authorship are always options for a licensor, as before. If we see a
huge uprising against the attribution-as-stock-feature, we'll
certainly consider bringing it back as an option.

***Link-back attribution clarified

Version 1.0 licenses did not carry any requirements to add hyperlinks
as attribution. Under the 2.0 licenses, a licensor may require that
licensees, to fulfill their attribution requirement, provide a link
back to the licensor's work. Three conditions must be satisfied,
though, before a licensee faces the linkback requirement: (1) linking
back must be "reasonably practicable" -- you can't string me up for
failing to link to a dead page, for example; (2) the licensor must
specify a URL -- if you don't provide one specifically, I have no
linkback obligation; (3) the link licensor provides must point to the
copyright and licensing notice of the CC'd work -- in other words,
licensors who abuse the linkback as an engine for traffic to unrelated
sites don't enjoy linkback rights.

***Synch rights clarified

The new licenses clarify when licensees may or may not synchronize
musical CC'd works in timed-relation with a moving image. Basically,
if a license allows derivatives, it allows the synching of music to
video. If no derivs, no synching allowed. (See Section 1b[5].)

***Other music-specific rights clarified

The default rules for music-related copyrights can be particularly
complicated, and the 2.0 licenses go to greater length to clarify how
various CC license options affect music rights. In a nutshell: If you
pick the "noncommercial" provision, you retain the right to collect
royalties from BMI, ASCAP, or the equivalent for performance
royalties; from Harry Fox or the equivalent for mechanicals; and from
SoundExchange or the equivalent for webcasting compulsories. If you
allow commercial re-use, you waive the exclusive rights to collect
these various revenue streams. This is not a departure from the policy
embodied in the 1.0 licenses -- these same results would be
extrapolated by any reasonable interpretation. But 2.0 just makes it
all clearer, and using the language of the profession. (See Sections
4e and 4f[6].) Note: This music-specific language marks the first time
we've referred to any specific statutes in the generic CC licenses.
This means that future iCommons licenses will have to do the same
somewhat complicated mapping exercise for each respective
jurisdiction.

***Warranties? Up to licensors

Unlike the 1.0 licenses, the 2.0 licenses include language that makes
clear that licensors' disclaim warranties of title, merchantibility,
fitness, etc. As readers of this blog know by now, the decision to
drop warranties as a standard feature of the licenses was a source of
much organizational soul-searching and analytical thinking for us.
Ultimately we were swayed by a two key factors: (1) Our peers, most
notably, Karl Lenz[7], Dan Bricklin[8], and MIT[9]. (2) The
realization that licensors could sell warranties to risk-averse,
high-exposure licensees interested in the due diligence paper trial,
thereby creating nice CC business model. (See the Prelinger Archive
[10] for a great example of this free/fee, as-is/warranty approach.)
You can find extensive discussion of this issue[11] in previous posts
on this blog. (See Section 5[12].)

***Share Alike Across Borders

Version 2.0 licenses that feature the Share Alike requirement now
clarify that derivatives may be re-published under one of three types
of licenses: (1) the exact same license as the original work; (2) a
later version of the same license as the original work; (3) an
iCommons license that contains the same license elements as the
original work (e.g. BY-SA-NC, as defined in Section 1[13] of each
license). The version 1.0 licenses required that derivative be
published under the *exact same license* only. Our tweak means much
better compatibility across future jurisdiction-specific licenses and,
going forward, across versions. Less forking, more fun. (See Section
4b[14].)

***Otherwise, Share Alike Means Share Alike

After much very strong and eloquent argument from our readers and
supporters, and notwithstanding the increased flexibility of Share
Alike in the iCommons context, we decided *not* to make the BY-NC-SA
and plain BY-SA licenses compatible. If you take a work under BY-NC-SA
2.0 and make something new from it, for example, you can re-publish
under BY-NC-SA Japan, or BY-NC-SA 7.4 (when that comes), but you
cannot republish it under any other license or combine it with BY-SA
content. Similarly, a derivative made from a work under BY-SA 2.0 may
be published only under BY-SA 2.0, BY-SA (iCommons license), or BY-SA
9.1, but it can't be mixed with BY-NC-SA or other noncommercial
content and republished.

***Nifty new Some Rights Reserved button

Check out the button at the bottom of this page. Wouldn't that look
good on your site? Time for an upgrade, cosmetic as well as legal?_

[1] https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/
[2] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3981
[3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
[4] http://creativecommons.org/license/
[5] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
[6] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
[7] http://k.lenz.name/LB/
[8] http://www.bricklin.com/
[9] http://www.mit.edu/
[10] http://www.prelinger.com/prelarch.html
[11] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3681
[12] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
[13] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
[14] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
---------------------
Glenn Otis Brown
Executive Director
Creative Commons
glenn AT creativecommons.org
+1.650.723.7572 (telephone)
+1.415.336.1433 (mobile)
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





  • [Cc-it] È uscita la versione 2.0 delle licenze CC, Lorenzo De Tomasi, 05/26/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page