Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Disclaimers for works of opinion as an incentive to free licensing

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis AT pitrou.net>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Disclaimers for works of opinion as an incentive to free licensing
  • Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:16:43 +0200

On Tue, 08 May 2012 18:04:25 -0400
drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 May 2012 16:48:05 +0200, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis AT pitrou.net>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:57:48 -0400
> > drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 08 May 2012 01:48:44 Ben Finney wrote:
> >> > > Common sense and honesty should be enough to prompt people to
> >> > > disclaim
> >> > > when they have changed the spirit of someone else's writings. Not
> >> > > everything needs to be formalized in a legal license.
> >> >
> >> > Defamation law, fraud law, and other similar laws are better positioned
> >> > to protect the author's meaning and intent in their work. Copyright is
> >> > a
> >> > poor tool for the job, and as many others have pointed out we have
> >> > better tools available.
> >>
> >> Actually, many of us don't or don't know what we have.
> >>
> >> Those other laws are certainly the proper tool for the job if they were
> >> well
> >> built and maintained.
> >>
> >> The problem is that in many places copyright law may seem simpler to
> >> apply and
> >> able to give a more sure outcome with less effort.
> >
> > Why do you think it "may seem simpler to apply"?
> > You can say what you want in your license, but that doesn't mean people
> > will respect it.
>
> Because, for instance in the case of using BY(-NC)-ND to prevent people
> from misrepresenting them in their writings, they just have to sue to
> prevent copying and distributing modified copies with no reason given.

Well, that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about taking
a free license and adding a clause against misrepresenting opinions,
all the while keeping it a free license. In this case, a court will
have to decide whether there's truly a misrepresentation or not.

Regards

Antoine.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page