Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Comments on the latest public CC draft

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Comments on the latest public CC draft
  • Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:05:19 -0800


On Feb 25, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:

[cut]



When I say "mandatory", I mean mandatory for the licensor, in the sense
that a licensor cannot choose to *not* grant this option to licensees.
In other words, I cannot release a work under the terms of CC-by-sa- v3.0
only: if I license the work under the terms of CC-by-sa-v3.0, I
*automatically* also license it under any later version of CC-by-sa and
any jurisdiction-specific variant of CC-by-sa-v3.0 and any later version
of that jurisdiction-specific variant.
And now even under any yet unknown license that Creative Commons will
insert into the "list of Compatible Licenses".
That's a lot of different licenses, indeed.
I will *never* have enough time to review all the jurisdiction- specific
CC-by-sa-v3.0 licenses (even without taking into account that I should
learn a huge number of different languages and their legalese jargons!).
Moreover, I *cannot* review all the future versions, since they have not
yet been written!
And I cannot review all the random licenses that will end up being
declared "Compatible", since I do not yet know which they are!

All this means that I, as an author, would be licensing my work under
*totally unknown* terms, should I decide to license it under
CC-by-sa-v3.0!
I should trust *every and each* local Creative Commons committee, for
the present *and* the future, to always correctly preserve the copyleft
mechanism...
Some CC-by-sa (or "Compatible") licenses could be too restrictive for my
tastes: my copyleft would be destroyed, without any possibility for me
of knowing it. Some other CC-by-sa licenses could be too permissive for
my tastes: my copyleft could again be destroyed (with one further
licensing step), without any possibility for me of knowing it.


if you feel that this is all too vague and that the development of content ghettos in the commons is preferable, then feel free to use only the CC BY-SA 1.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ legalcode. you will have to give warranties and you will continue to have the ability to request removal of authorship credits, which you consider to be unfree but at least you know that licensees can only relicense under the CC BY-SA 1.0.

[cut]


The following is a typo, or at least it seems to be:

---> in clause 1(g) there's a "Noncommercial" that should not be there,
since this is the CC-by-sa license:

| (g) "License Elements" means the following high-level license
| attributes as selected by Licensor and indicated in the title
| of this License: Attribution, Noncommercial, ShareAlike.


this typo was fixed in the final versions that were, as evan has pointed out, released last week. see http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode

^^^^^^^^^^^^^


--
http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html
Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page