Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Attribution discussion

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Attribution discussion
  • Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 20:26:10 -0400

>>>>> "GL" == Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> writes:

Me> I guess my main point is that the Attribution section is the
Me> only place in the Creative Commons licenses where you're
Me> required to keep the copyright notice. If there's no
Me> Attribution section (as with nc 1.0, nd 1.0, sa 1.0, nc-sa 1.0,
Me> et. al.), there's no requirement to keep copyright notices.

GL> I dunno. I keep reading CC-BY-NC-20 (alphanumeric soup now)
GL> and it sounds like the Copyright Notice is mandatory.

You may want to contrast nc-1.0:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc/1.0/legalcode

The copyright notice part is the restriction that's included only in
by-* licenses.

GL> I suppose if the original work doesn't contain a notice, then
GL> derivative works don't need a notice. But doesn't a notice
GL> protect against claims of "innocent infringement"? And if
GL> you're going the NC route, aren't you looking to protect your
GL> commercial interests, and would therefore want a copyright
GL> notice even if you dont want "attribution".

Yep. I'm not sure we're arguing that much. I think we might be talking
at cross purposes. When I say "Attribution" I'm particularly talking
about the clause in the CC licenses that requires the following to be
provided in Collective or Derivative Works:

1) copyright notice(s)
2) author name
3) title
4) "linkback" URI (new in 2.0)
5) changelog

It sounds like when you say "attribution" (small-a), you might mean
some or all of the last four of these.

If the question is, "Should the Attribution-less (capital-A) license
be reinstated for the 2.0 licenses?", I think there's three options:

1) No. Just add extra disclaimers of some kind ('if
supplied' or 'revocation').
2) Yes. No requirement for any of the above stuff.
3) Kinda. Make a different requirement for copyright
notices, but nothing else.

Does that make sense?

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://wikitravel.org/en/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page