Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: please do not allow licensors to forbid accurate credit

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Engel Nyst <engel.nyst AT gmail.com>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: please do not allow licensors to forbid accurate credit
  • Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:34:06 +0200

On 09/15/2013 07:47 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
Section 3(a)(3) of CC-by-nc-sa-v4.0draft4 states:

[...]
3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the
information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) if reasonably
practicable.
[...]

where information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) is basically
the names of the authors and others designated to receive attribution,
copyright notices, disclaimers, and a URI.

I understand that this clause is planned for all CC-v4.0 licenses.

Personally, I still believe this requirement fails to meet
the Debian Free Software Guidelines. See my previous message [1]
about this same issue in draft2.

[1] https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2012-August/007118.html

I once again recommend to entirely drop this clause from CC-v4.0
licenses, or, at least, to amend it so that it says:

| 3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any inaccurate
| or misleading information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) if
| reasonably practicable.

I really hope this suggestion may be implemented in the final
text of CC-v4.0 licenses.

FWIW, I sympathize with the belief it shouldn't be in the license. But perhaps it's the lesser of two evils.

The legal framework outlined in the Berne convention, in my reading, makes moral rights impossible to waive/license.[1]
That may make a "creative commons" impossible, because it affects its perpetual and irrevocable traits. This draft explains it better than I could: [2]. Please note the discussion around withdrawal.

The problem is not if I, a name on the internet, may think that if it's merely accurate then does not and should not be perceived as affecting reputation. The problem is that we're working within a framework that gives the author the right to make that determination *later* and I have no idea if courts may or may not agree. The right to withdraw the work later contradicts any open licensing.

A free license must be irrevocable. Within such constraints, my point is perhaps it's better to let a way ("if reasonably practicable") for the author to withdraw their *name* - and *not the work*.

[1] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726
[2] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2159697




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page