Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Why do you have to chose the "Attribution" option with the new CC 2.0 Licenses?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Why do you have to chose the "Attribution" option with the new CC 2.0 Licenses?
  • Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:25:52 +0100

On 16 Aug 2004, at 18:06, evan AT wikitravel.org wrote:

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 09:22:55AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:

I believe that people misunderstood the differences between attribution
and nonattribution in 1.0: I think that even if you chose nonattribution you
still got your name mentioned in the copyrights as part of the licensing (is
that right?).

No, it's not right. The Attribution clause is the one that requires
copyright notices to be preserved. sa 1.0, for example, doesn't require
copyright notices to be preserved, just license notification.

I thought that the attribution clause was the one that required your name to be stuck in the credits separate from the licensing info. Re-reading 1.0 I see that this is indeed in with the copyrights.

So is it OK to strip the copyrights under CC not-BY 1.0? This sounds slightly strange (the license hinges on copyright, there's moral rights as well), but I'm not an expert on US law...

I think you're really, really misunderstanding the Attribution clause.
Conflating it with the BSD advertising clause is really, really inaccurate.
It has nothing to do with advertising, and the requirements are nowhere near
as obnoxious, nor are there the problems of scale that come from the
advertizing clause.

They differ in degree, but both require additional "payment" from the user in the form of sticking a name on a product.

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page