From ben.branders at gmail.com Mon Nov 1 12:06:27 2004 From: ben.branders at gmail.com (Ben Branders) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:06:27 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Any news on the Belgian/Flemish version? Message-ID: <911f11f3041101090623eec8fd@mail.gmail.com> I am very interested in the Creative Commons and I am glad there will be a Belgian/Flemisch version. Congrats to the project leaders and the contributors!! On http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/be/ : > The dutch version will be carried out by M?lanie Carly, researcher at CIR (Centrum voor > Intellectuele Rechten), University of Leuven. It will be available in October. When will it be (officially) available? Kind regards -- Ben Branders mailto:ben.branders at gmail.com url:http://bytewarrior.madoka.be xmpp:ben.branders at jabber.dk From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Tue Nov 2 09:51:17 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:51:17 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Re: Any news on the Belgian/Flemish version? Message-ID: The Belgian CC licences have now been posted on the CC.be website for discussion (http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/be). We can now start to discuss about them and the team in charge of the drafting of the Belgian licenses are eager to read your comments, suggestions or to answer to your questions. The licence translated is the Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareALike - v. 2.0. . This is the licence one normally chooses if one authorises the distribution, reproduction, the modification of her/his work for non commercial purposes and one requires the attribution of the work to its author. You will find on the website a comparison table between the original license and the translated version into Belgian law (Dutch, French and English). This comparison table explains the changes that have been made to the original license. Note that we have altered the original license only to address the Belgian legal framework and that we tried not to modify the logic and philosophy of the license. The public discussion will end on November 28. I hope we will have a fruitful discussion ! S?verine - CRID Les licences belges Creative Commons sont d?sormais sur le site cc.be (http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/be) et sont soumises ? discussion. Les personnes en charge de cette traduction en droit belge sont impatientes de lire vos commentaires, critiques et suggestions et sont pr?tes ? r?pondre ? vos questions. La licence traduite est la licence Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareALike - v. 2.0. C'est la licenne normalement choisie pour autoriser la distribution, reproduction et modification de son oeuvre dans un but non commercial tout en exigeant que l'auteur soit identifi?. Vous trouverez sur le site un tableau de comparaison entre la licence originale et se traductions belges fran?aise, n?erlandaise et anglaise. ce tableau explique les changements qui ont ?t? faits. Notez que nous avons modifi? la licence que dans la mesure n?cessaire au cadre l?gal belge et que nous avons essay? de ne pas alt?rer la logique et la philosophie de la licence. La discussion publique se terminera le 28 novembre. J'esp?re que nous aurons une discussion fertile. S?verine - CRID -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041102/6300dabe/attachment.html From Melanie.Carly at law.kuleuven.ac.be Wed Nov 3 04:28:38 2004 From: Melanie.Carly at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Melanie Carly) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:28:38 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Vragen omtrend CC Message-ID: <1099474118.4188a4c6a87c5@webmail1.kuleuven.be> Beste Thomas, De individuele auteursrechtelijk beschermde delen van het project kunnen inderdaad onder een Creative Commons-licentie vrijgegeven worden. Zo kan Griet een liedje maken en het onder een CC-licentie vrijgeven. Jan mag het in zijn montage stoppen indien de door Griet gebruikte CC-licentie dit toelaat (onder de No Derivative Works- / Geen Afgeleide Werken-licentie mag dit niet). Niet alleen Jan mag het liedje van Griet, dat onder een CC-licentie vrijgegeven werd, gebruiken. Ook anderen kunnen hetzelfde doen. De CC- licenties zijn niet geschikt om aan ??n bepaalde persoon of aan een beperkte groep van personen rechten toe te kennen. Indien het de bedoeling is dat de film commercieel gedistribueerd wordt, dan moet er geopteerd worden voor de CC-licenties die commercieel gebruik toestaan. Indien Griet haar liedje onder een NonCommercial- / Niet-Commercieel- licentie vrijgegeven heeft, dan mag het liedje niet gebruikt worden in een film die commercieel ge?xploiteerd zal worden. Je zult dus moeten nagaan of de verschillende medewerkers een CC-licentie die commercieel gebruik toelaat, willen aanvaarden. Hier ook terug: iedereen zal dan hun werk onder de voorwaarden van die licentie mogen gebruiken. Wat de Sabam-vraag betreft: een muzikant kan enkel de rechten die hij zelf heeft onder een CC-licentie verlenen aan anderen. Als hij eerder het beheer van zijn rechten afgestaan heeft aan een organisatie, zoals Sabam, dan kan hij deze niet meer verlenen aan anderen. Er zal dus nagegaan moeten worden welke rechten de muzikant afgestaan heeft aan Sabam en over welke rechten hij zelf nog zeggenschap heeft. Indien je hier meer over wilt weten: dit onderwerp zal aan bod komen op onze launch. Vriendelijke groeten Melanie Carly From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Thu Nov 4 04:57:45 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:57:45 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Dual licencing (refer to: Vragen omtrent CC) Message-ID: <4189FD19.5080304@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Beste, Ik ben net ingeschreven op de lijst, dus een gewone 'reply' lukt nog niet. >>Thomas wrote: > >- is het mogelijk CC selectief toe te wijzen, bijvoorbeeld: Griet maakt >een liedje, Jan mag het mee in zijn montage stoppen (en dus >verknippen), en al de rest mag het wel beluisteren en verspreiden maar >bv niet verkopen of verknippen. Ook naar onze sponsors toe zou een >licentie (anders dan voor publiek) een leuke zaak zijn. De CC licentie op zich laat niet toe om selectief te zijn, zoals Melanie antwoordt in haar mail. 'Dual licencing' is hiervoor misschien een oplossing. Griet kan Jan een klassieke licentie geven om te monteren en te verknippen. Het originele liedje kan ze vrijgeven met een NonDerivatives CC licentie aan het publiek. Om discussie te vermijden, kan ze in de licentie aan Jan het recht voorbehouden om dat te doen. Dual licencing gaat alleen als er geen conflict is tussen twee licenties die je geeft. Dit is geen oplossing voor je relatie met SABAM. Je kan je rechten niet tegelijk overdragen aan SABAM en onder een CC licentie vrijgeven aan het publiek. Met vriendelijke groeten, Hannelore Dekeyser -- www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri/ From philippe.laurent at fundp.ac.be Thu Nov 4 09:08:32 2004 From: philippe.laurent at fundp.ac.be (Philippe LAURENT) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:08:32 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Dual licencing (refer to: Vragen omtrent CC) Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20041104134554.02363c90@pop.fundp.ac.be> Beste, Ik zou graag twee opmerkingen aan de verklaringen van Annelore en Melanie toevoegen: Inderdaad zou ?dual licensing? een goeie oplossing zijn om een verschil te maken tussen het ?publiek? en de medewerkers van het project: - op de ene kant kan men het werk onder (bij voorbeeld) een niet commercieel/gelijkdelen CC licentie publiceren, en - op de andere kant, een zelfopgestelde (?privaat?) licentie aan een of andere medewerker(s) van het project verlenen. Men moet weten dat, in een copyleft (gelijkdelen) logica, alleen maar de oorspronkelijke auteur ?dual-licensing? kan doen : de auteurs van afgeleide werken moeten de voorwaarden van de copyleft licentie respecteren, en daarvoor moeten ze deze afgeleide werken onder dezelfde licentie verdelen (tenminste, als ze deze afgeleide werken willen verdelen). Thomas vroeg ook : ?hoe verdien je geld aan een ge-CC-t project? Dit is met deze ?dual-licencing? praktijk verbonden: Wanneer je de niet commercieel CC licentie kiest, het is precies om deze rechten te houden : je blijft de enige persoon die het werk commercieel mag uitbaten (bij voorbeeld, door het afsluiten van commerci?le licentie contracten met uitgevers, enz ) Philippe LAURENT From thomas at goorden.be Thu Nov 4 15:29:13 2004 From: thomas at goorden.be (Thomas Goorden) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:29:13 CET Subject: [Cc-be] =?iso-8859-1?q?Bijkomende_bedenkingen_commerci=EBle_aspe?= =?iso-8859-1?q?cten?= Message-ID: Hallo iedereen, Eerst en vooral bedankt voor de interesse die jullie tonen voor onze vragen ivm CC en de zeer degelijke antwoorden. Ergens vermoedde ik al wel dat er een soort "dual-licencing" nodig zou zijn om zowel "vrije" als "commerci?le" doeleinden te verbinden aan ons filmproject. Nu maak ik echter op uit jullie bemerkingen dat we zelf voor een bijkomende commerci?le licentie zullen moeten zorgen voor eventuele opbrengsten. In principe zou daar dan het SABAM systeem van de auteursrechten voor kunnen gebruikt worden. Als ik me niet vergis is dat eigenlijk het soort service dat zij leveren: een betaalde licentie voor gebruik (maar dan via hun organisatie). Echter, ik vermoed sterk dat de "policy" van SABAM een alternatief licentie systeem (zoals CC) toelaat naast hun eigen licenties. Waarschijnlijk werken ze met een soort exclusiviteit (dit is een gok!). De vragen die dan automatisch opkomen zijn dan ook: - werkt SABAM met exclusiviteit? Of blijft de auteur alle rechten behouden? - is er in geval van exclusiviteit al eens met hen gesproken over meer "liberale" licenties? - zijn er alternatieve (commerci?le) licentie systemen beschikbaar of zouden we die zelf moeten bedenken? Indien mogelijk, tracht ik zeker aanwezig te zijn op de introductie-receptie van CC in Belgi?! Groeten, Thomas Goorden From philippe.laurent at fundp.ac.be Thu Nov 4 11:36:48 2004 From: philippe.laurent at fundp.ac.be (Philippe LAURENT) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:36:48 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] =?iso-8859-1?q?Soci=E9t=E9s_de_gestion_collective_=28Sab?= =?iso-8859-1?q?am?= ,...) Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20041104172809.026023a0@pop.fundp.ac.be> Nous nous attendions ? ce que la question des soci?t?s de gestion collective (Sabam, Sofam,...) soit l?un des sujets ? chauds ? de cette discussion publique. Bon nombre d?artistes sont en effet affili?s ? ces soci?t?s, et cette affiliation est indispensable aux auteurs d?sirant toucher certains ? droits ? r?mun?ration ?. Comme l?a d?j? soulign? M?lanie, le principe juridique g?n?ral selon lequel ? on ne saurait c?der plus de droits que l?on ne poss?de ? est d?application. Il s?agirait d?s lors pour les auteurs de v?rifier, dans le contrat qui les lie avec leur soci?t? de gestion collective, les droits qu?ils ont c?d?s ou gard?s, et d?une fa?on g?n?rale, les pr?rogatives et le contr?le qu?ils conservent quant ? l?utilisation qui est faite de leurs ?uvres. En ce qui concerne la Sabam, ? ma connaissance, le contrat sign? avec les auteurs est un contrat d? ? affiliation et de cession fiduciaire ?. En d?autres termes, l?auteur transf?re ses droits ? la soci?t? afin que celle-ci les g?re dans l?int?r?t de ce-dernier. La soci?t? assure la perception et la juste r?partition des droits de ses affili?s. La cession porte sur les ?uvres d?j? cr??es ou qui le seront au cours du contrat d?affiliation. D?s lors, l?auteur affili? verra ses droits sur ses nouvelles ?uvres syst?matiquement transf?r?s ? la soci?t? d?s que ces ?uvres auront ?t? achev?es (divulgu?es). L?auteur s?oblige par la signature du contrat ? d?clarer ses ?uvres pr?sentes et futures. De ce fait, selon moi, il est a priori hors de question qu?un auteur affili? d?cide de publier ou distribuer une de ses ?uvres sous licence CC sans le consentement de la Sabam, ? condition cependant que cet acte soit couvert par les droits c?d?s ? cette derni?re. Le contrat d?affiliation est con?u en effet de fa?on ? laisser ? l?auteur la possibilit? de se r?server certains droits, qui sont ? retir?s ? de la gestion collective (l?auteur pourrait donc par exemple se r?server les droits de reproduction, tout en c?dant ses droits de communication au public). L?auteur a ?galement le droit d?effectuer un ? retrait partiel ? des droits qui font l?objet du contrat de cession, en suivant une proc?dure d?termin?e. En tout ?tat de fait, l?auteur peut r?silier son affiliation et r?cup?rer ses droits en suivant la proc?dure pr?vue. Ces ? options ? sur les droits c?d?s ne concernent cependant que certains droits en g?n?ral et pas certaines ?uvres en particulier. Je ne sais pas si la Sabam accepte la pratique qui consisterait a retirer tous les droits relatifs ? certaines ?uvres d?termin?es de la gestion collective. Cette pratique serait cependant id?ale pour les auteurs d?sireux de distribuer et publier certaines de leurs ?uvres de fa?on ? libre ? : ils n?auraient qu??, au pr?alable, signaler ? la Sabam que les droits concernant ces ?uvres sont ? retir?s ? de la gestion collective. Ceci n?est bien entendu qu?une piste parmi d?autres, et nous pouvons esp?rer que des repr?sentants des soci?t?s de gestion collective expriment leurs points de vue dans le cadre de cette discussion publique. Philippe Laurent From wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be Wed Nov 17 09:45:45 2004 From: wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be (Wouter Vanden hove) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:45:45 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Lending a DVD to a illegal? Message-ID: <419B6419.2090704@pandora.be> Although a little bit of-topic, but I would like to ask your opinion about the claims made on a new Belgian anti-piracy website www.houdedief.be it's completely in Flash Follow the links --> De Wet --> Wat is verboden then a pop-up appears which says "Een DVD uitlenen" Note that is not about copied, downloaded or illegal DVDs. So, lending a DVD to a friend is illegal? How about lending a book? Wouter Vanden Hove www.opencursus.org www.skepp.be From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Wed Nov 17 09:23:56 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:23:56 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Lending a DVD to a illegal? In-Reply-To: <419B6419.2090704@pandora.be> References: <419B6419.2090704@pandora.be> Message-ID: That is of course overrated. The lending is covered by the copyright only when it is made by an establishment open to the public (library, m?diath?que, ...). Lending a DVD, a book or a CD to a friend is therefore completely legal. What infuriates me the most is that it is another website considering users as thieves and criminals. Not very smart from them if they want to educate and inform the users. S?verine >Although a little bit of-topic, >but I would like to ask your opinion about the >claims made on a new Belgian anti-piracy website >www.houdedief.be > >it's completely in Flash >Follow the links --> De Wet --> Wat is verboden >then a pop-up appears which says > >"Een DVD uitlenen" >Note that is not about copied, downloaded or illegal DVDs. > >So, lending a DVD to a friend is illegal? >How about lending a book? > > > >Wouter Vanden Hove >www.opencursus.org >www.skepp.be >_______________________________________________ >Cc-be mailing list >Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be -- S?verine Dusollier Centre de Recherche Informatique et Droit - Responsable du D?partement Droits Intellectuels Ma?tre de Conf?rences aux Facult?s Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix de Namur Rempart de la Vierge 5 T?l: +32 81 72 47 60 5000 NAMUR Fax: +32 81 72 52 02 BELGIQUE severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be http://www.crid.be From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Thu Nov 18 03:58:53 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:58:53 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] discussion des licences Message-ID: Il reste une semaine pour discuter des licences, version belge ! Jusqu'ici la discussion s'est concentr?e sur des questions g?n?rales relatives au CC, ce qui ?tait tr?s int?ressant bien s?r... Mais n'avez-vous aucune question, critique ou observation sur le texte belge des licence ? A vos claviers! S?verine There is only one week left to discuss about the Belgian version of the CC licenses. So far, our discussion mainly focussed on general questions about CC, which was interesting of course... But do you really have no questions, criticism or comment about the Belgian text of the CC licenses ? S?verine From dv8flow at pandora.be Thu Nov 18 06:25:15 2004 From: dv8flow at pandora.be (wolf) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:25:15 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] =?iso-8859-1?q?Bijkomende_bedenkingen_commerci=EBle_aspe?= Message-ID: <000001c4cd61$46eb8b20$ad00a8c0@dv8flow> Over de grond, Het klinkt allemaal fantastisch. Maar zoals het de rechtsleer past, met het hoofd in het ijle, hopende op een betere wereld. Het klinkt allemaal uitermate perfect voor een veranderende informatiewereld, maar het zijn letters op papier. Ik hoop dat er nagedacht word over de praktische gevolgen op korte en lange termijn? Of wordt dat een 'we zien wel'? Dit staat te goed op mijn cv, maar ziet u verder? Wat zie ik? Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. (Ik krijg wel de mogelijkheid dit bericht te typen). Maar vooral een paar juristen die denken dat ze weten wat goed is voor het lot van de denkenden, En deze schuchtere poging, die ik bij toeval moest ontdekken, lijkt dan eerder bedoeld om het mogelijks later schuldgevoel te doven. Wat zie ik? Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. Die niet zal bewerkstelligen wat ervan verwacht wordt, Maar naar mijn mening net het omgekeerde. De kleine artiest zal verpletterd worden door de macht van auteursorganisaties. Zij zullen de artiesten nog meer onder druk zetten om hun rechten af te staan, onder het mom van de bescherming, en dat zij beter weten wat goed voor hen is. De grote producenten? Zullen zij niet reageren? Iets wat geld opbracht laten schieten in deze tijden van crisis? Of de reclamewereld? Zal die dit voorstel niet met open armen ontvangen, en heeft die niet als enige de mogelijkheden om dit voorstel tegen hen te keren voor wie het gemaakt is? En wie zal hen dan nog beschermen? De auteursorganisaties? Wat zie ik? Opmerkingen op een soort forum. Maar gaan ze over de kern van de zaak? Ze gaan over de vorm, of de uitwerking en een enkele keer zelfs over de korte termijn. Wilt u op basis hiervan zo een belangrijke beslissingen maken? Of op basis van uw eigen kennis van de betreffende materie, het glorieuze auteursrecht. Of omdat andere landen het ook doen, en het lijkt te werken? U voelt zich beledigd? Gepakt in uw kennis en ervaring door zo maar iemand? Uw werk bespot, uw goede bedoelingen in twijfel getrokken? U hoeft niet naar mij te luisteren, lezend kan u wissen. Maar weet dat mijn hoofd ooit zat waar het uwe nu is, Ik weet wat u denkt, hoe u denkt - geloof me vrij En daarom kan ik nog hopen, dat u verder denkt dan uw ivoren toren. Laat uw goede bedoelingen, en de mogelijkheid op wat pr voor u persoonlijk en uw afdeling in uw 'instelling van kennis' NIET de motivatie zijn. Dv8flow -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041118/3e05722e/attachment.html From wim.schreurs at vub.ac.be Thu Nov 18 12:25:52 2004 From: wim.schreurs at vub.ac.be (wim schreurs) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:25:52 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] RE: Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: <20041118170031.CD49A480B3@metalab.unc.edu> Message-ID: <000101c4cd93$a816f560$cf42b886@vub.ac.be> Hello, I cannot open the links on the international website of cc, so i cannot study the draft licenses. Wim Schreurs -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: cc-be-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-be-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]Namens cc-be-request at lists.ibiblio.org Verzonden: donderdag 18 november 2004 18:01 Aan: cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org Onderwerp: Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 Send Cc-be mailing list submissions to cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to cc-be-request at lists.ibiblio.org You can reach the person managing the list at cc-be-owner at lists.ibiblio.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Cc-be digest..." Today's Topics: 1. discussion des licences (Severine Dusollier) 2. Bijkomende bedenkingen commerci?le aspe (wolf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:58:53 +0100 From: Severine Dusollier Subject: [Cc-be] discussion des licences To: cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Il reste une semaine pour discuter des licences, version belge ! Jusqu'ici la discussion s'est concentrie sur des questions ginirales relatives au CC, ce qui itait trhs intiressant bien s{r... Mais n'avez-vous aucune question, critique ou observation sur le texte belge des licence ? A vos claviers! Siverine There is only one week left to discuss about the Belgian version of the CC licenses. So far, our discussion mainly focussed on general questions about CC, which was interesting of course... But do you really have no questions, criticism or comment about the Belgian text of the CC licenses ? Siverine ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:25:15 +0100 From: "wolf" Subject: [Cc-be] Bijkomende bedenkingen commerci?le aspe To: Message-ID: <000001c4cd61$46eb8b20$ad00a8c0 at dv8flow> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Over de grond, Het klinkt allemaal fantastisch. Maar zoals het de rechtsleer past, met het hoofd in het ijle, hopende op een betere wereld. Het klinkt allemaal uitermate perfect voor een veranderende informatiewereld, maar het zijn letters op papier. Ik hoop dat er nagedacht word over de praktische gevolgen op korte en lange termijn? Of wordt dat een 'we zien wel'? Dit staat te goed op mijn cv, maar ziet u verder? Wat zie ik? Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. (Ik krijg wel de mogelijkheid dit bericht te typen). Maar vooral een paar juristen die denken dat ze weten wat goed is voor het lot van de denkenden, En deze schuchtere poging, die ik bij toeval moest ontdekken, lijkt dan eerder bedoeld om het mogelijks later schuldgevoel te doven. Wat zie ik? Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. Die niet zal bewerkstelligen wat ervan verwacht wordt, Maar naar mijn mening net het omgekeerde. De kleine artiest zal verpletterd worden door de macht van auteursorganisaties. Zij zullen de artiesten nog meer onder druk zetten om hun rechten af te staan, onder het mom van de bescherming, en dat zij beter weten wat goed voor hen is. De grote producenten? Zullen zij niet reageren? Iets wat geld opbracht laten schieten in deze tijden van crisis? Of de reclamewereld? Zal die dit voorstel niet met open armen ontvangen, en heeft die niet als enige de mogelijkheden om dit voorstel tegen hen te keren voor wie het gemaakt is? En wie zal hen dan nog beschermen? De auteursorganisaties? Wat zie ik? Opmerkingen op een soort forum. Maar gaan ze over de kern van de zaak? Ze gaan over de vorm, of de uitwerking en een enkele keer zelfs over de korte termijn. Wilt u op basis hiervan zo een belangrijke beslissingen maken? Of op basis van uw eigen kennis van de betreffende materie, het glorieuze auteursrecht. Of omdat andere landen het ook doen, en het lijkt te werken? U voelt zich beledigd? Gepakt in uw kennis en ervaring door zo maar iemand? Uw werk bespot, uw goede bedoelingen in twijfel getrokken? U hoeft niet naar mij te luisteren, lezend kan u wissen. Maar weet dat mijn hoofd ooit zat waar het uwe nu is, Ik weet wat u denkt, hoe u denkt - geloof me vrij En daarom kan ik nog hopen, dat u verder denkt dan uw ivoren toren. Laat uw goede bedoelingen, en de mogelijkheid op wat pr voor u persoonlijk en uw afdeling in uw 'instelling van kennis' NIET de motivatie zijn. Dv8flow -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041118/3e05722e/attac hment-0001.htm ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Cc-be mailing list Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be End of Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 *********************************** From Hannelore.Dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Thu Nov 18 12:35:43 2004 From: Hannelore.Dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:35:43 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] RE: bijkomende =?iso-8859-1?q?commerci=EBle?= aspecten Message-ID: <1100799343.419cdd6ff26f1@webmail2.kuleuven.be> Beste Wolf, Ik begrijp uw bedoeling niet echt met uw bericht. De creative commons licentie is geen overheidsbeslissing om het auteursrecht te wijzigen. Het is een instrument dat individuele auteurs kunnen gebruiken als zij dat wensen. De open source beweging, waar creative commons toch in past, is niet ontstaan binnen juridische kring maar door en voor informatici. Daarna is het uitgedeind naar andere sectoren (muziek, beeld en tekst). Dus of juristen nu wel of niet in een ivoren toren zitten is hier naast de kwestie. Open source en creative commons is ontstaan op vraag van de gebruikers ervan: auteurs. Dit is bij uitstek een grass-roots beweging. Of de Belgische variant van de Creative Commons licentie een succes wordt, hangt helemaal niet af van de schrijvers ervan, maar van de potenti?le gebruikers in Belgi?. De juristen hebben hun werk gedaan, juridische instrumenten beschikbaar stellen aan gebruikes. De bal is duidelijk in het kamp van de auteurs nu. De motivatie van het CRID en het CIR om dit juridisch werk te leveren lijkt mij eerder bijzaak. Ik vind het in elk geval een goede zaak dat het gebeurd. Of het auteursrecht in zijn huidige vorm rechtvaardig is voor auteurs en consumenten is een heel interessante discussie. Maar het onderwerp van dit forum is of de Belgische variant van de Creative Commons een goede hertaling is naar Belgisch recht en of het bruikbaar is voor de doelgroep. Wat vind jij? Is de creative commons een nuttig instrument voor auteurs? En waarom dan wel of niet? Ik ben vast van plan de Belgische variant eens grondig door te nemen. [Gelukkig heb ik internetverbinding in mijn ivoren toren :o) Grapje!] Laten we dan in die laatste week eens echt inhoudelijk discussi?ren. Met vriendelijke groeten, Hannelore -- Don't shoot the messenger ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf wrote: Over de grond, Het klinkt allemaal fantastisch. Maar zoals het de rechtsleer past, met het hoofd in het ijle, hopende op een betere wereld. Het klinkt allemaal uitermate perfect voor een veranderende informatiewereld, maar het zijn letters op papier. Ik hoop dat er nagedacht word over de praktische gevolgen op korte en lange termijn? Of wordt dat een 'we zien wel'? Dit staat te goed op mijn cv, maar ziet u verder? Wat zie ik? Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. (Ik krijg wel de mogelijkheid dit bericht te typen). Maar vooral een paar juristen die denken dat ze weten wat goed is voor het lot van de denkenden, En deze schuchtere poging, die ik bij toeval moest ontdekken, lijkt dan eerder bedoeld om het mogelijks later schuldgevoel te doven. Wat zie ik? Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. Die niet zal bewerkstelligen wat ervan verwacht wordt, Maar naar mijn mening net het omgekeerde. De kleine artiest zal verpletterd worden door de macht van auteursorganisaties. Zij zullen de artiesten nog meer onder druk zetten om hun rechten af te staan, onder het mom van de bescherming, en dat zij beter weten wat goed voor hen is. De grote producenten? Zullen zij niet reageren? Iets wat geld opbracht laten schieten in deze tijden van crisis? Of de reclamewereld? Zal die dit voorstel niet met open armen ontvangen, en heeft die niet als enige de mogelijkheden om dit voorstel tegen hen te keren voor wie het gemaakt is? En wie zal hen dan nog beschermen? De auteursorganisaties? Wat zie ik? Opmerkingen op een soort forum. Maar gaan ze over de kern van de zaak? Ze gaan over de vorm, of de uitwerking en een enkele keer zelfs over de korte termijn. Wilt u op basis hiervan zo een belangrijke beslissingen maken? Of op basis van uw eigen kennis van de betreffende materie, het glorieuze auteursrecht. Of omdat andere landen het ook doen, en het lijkt te werken? U voelt zich beledigd? Gepakt in uw kennis en ervaring door zo maar iemand? Uw werk bespot, uw goede bedoelingen in twijfel getrokken? U hoeft niet naar mij te luisteren, lezend kan u wissen. Maar weet dat mijn hoofd ooit zat waar het uwe nu is, Ik weet wat u denkt, hoe u denkt - geloof me vrij En daarom kan ik nog hopen, dat u verder denkt dan uw ivoren toren. Laat uw goede bedoelingen, en de mogelijkheid op wat pr voor u persoonlijk en uw afdeling in uw 'instelling van kennis' NIET de motivatie zijn. Dv8flow From Melanie.Carly at law.kuleuven.ac.be Thu Nov 18 13:27:04 2004 From: Melanie.Carly at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Melanie Carly) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:27:04 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] problems with accessibility of licenses In-Reply-To: <000101c4cd93$a816f560$cf42b886@vub.ac.be> References: <000101c4cd93$a816f560$cf42b886@vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <1100802424.419ce978cbf3b@webmail2.kuleuven.be> Hello Wim, We informed Creative Commons yesterday about the problem. We hope that they will solve the problem soon. Melanie Carly Quoting wim schreurs : > Hello, > > I cannot open the links on the international website of cc, so i > cannot > study the draft licenses. > > Wim Schreurs > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: cc-be-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org > [mailto:cc-be-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]Namens > cc-be-request at lists.ibiblio.org > Verzonden: donderdag 18 november 2004 18:01 > Aan: cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > Onderwerp: Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 > > > Send Cc-be mailing list submissions to > cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cc-be-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cc-be-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Cc-be digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. discussion des licences (Severine Dusollier) > 2. Bijkomende bedenkingen commerci?le aspe (wolf) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:58:53 +0100 > From: Severine Dusollier > Subject: [Cc-be] discussion des licences > To: cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" > > Il reste une semaine pour discuter des licences, > version belge ! Jusqu'ici la discussion s'est > concentrie sur des questions ginirales relatives > au CC, ce qui itait trhs intiressant bien s{r... > Mais n'avez-vous aucune question, critique ou > observation sur le texte belge des licence ? > A vos claviers! > > Siverine > > > There is only one week left to discuss about the > Belgian version of the CC licenses. So far, our > discussion mainly focussed on general questions > about CC, which was interesting of course... > But do you really have no questions, criticism or > comment about the Belgian text of the CC licenses > ? > > Siverine > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:25:15 +0100 > From: "wolf" > Subject: [Cc-be] Bijkomende bedenkingen commerci?le aspe > To: > Message-ID: <000001c4cd61$46eb8b20$ad00a8c0 at dv8flow> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Over de grond, > > > Het klinkt allemaal fantastisch. Maar zoals het de rechtsleer past, > met > het hoofd in het ijle, hopende op een betere wereld. > Het klinkt allemaal uitermate perfect voor een veranderende > informatiewereld, maar het zijn letters op papier. > Ik hoop dat er nagedacht word over de praktische gevolgen op korte > en > lange termijn? Of wordt dat een 'we zien wel'? > Dit staat te goed op mijn cv, maar ziet u verder? > > Wat zie ik? > Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. (Ik krijg wel de > mogelijkheid dit bericht te typen). > Maar vooral een paar juristen die denken dat ze weten wat goed is > voor > het lot van de denkenden, > En deze schuchtere poging, die ik bij toeval moest ontdekken, lijkt > dan > eerder bedoeld om het mogelijks later schuldgevoel te doven. > > Wat zie ik? > Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. Die niet zal > bewerkstelligen wat ervan verwacht wordt, > Maar naar mijn mening net het omgekeerde. De kleine artiest zal > verpletterd worden door de macht van auteursorganisaties. > Zij zullen de artiesten nog meer onder druk zetten om hun rechten af > te > staan, onder het mom van de bescherming, en dat zij beter weten wat > goed > voor hen is. > De grote producenten? Zullen zij niet reageren? Iets wat geld > opbracht > laten schieten in deze tijden van crisis? > Of de reclamewereld? Zal die dit voorstel niet met open armen > ontvangen, en heeft die niet als enige de mogelijkheden om dit > voorstel > tegen hen te keren voor wie het gemaakt is? > En wie zal hen dan nog beschermen? De auteursorganisaties? > > Wat zie ik? > Opmerkingen op een soort forum. Maar gaan ze over de kern van de > zaak? > Ze gaan over de vorm, of de uitwerking en een enkele keer zelfs over > de > korte termijn. > Wilt u op basis hiervan zo een belangrijke beslissingen maken? > Of op basis van uw eigen kennis van de betreffende materie, het > glorieuze auteursrecht. > Of omdat andere landen het ook doen, en het lijkt te werken? > > U voelt zich beledigd? Gepakt in uw kennis en ervaring door zo maar > iemand? > Uw werk bespot, uw goede bedoelingen in twijfel getrokken? > U hoeft niet naar mij te luisteren, lezend kan u wissen. > Maar weet dat mijn hoofd ooit zat waar het uwe nu is, > Ik weet wat u denkt, hoe u denkt - geloof me vrij > En daarom kan ik nog hopen, dat u verder denkt dan uw ivoren toren. > Laat uw goede bedoelingen, en de mogelijkheid op wat pr voor u > persoonlijk > en uw afdeling in uw 'instelling van kennis' NIET de motivatie zijn. > > > Dv8flow > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041118/3e05722e/attac > hment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Cc-be mailing list > Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > > > End of Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 > *********************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Cc-be mailing list > Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > > From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Fri Nov 19 03:59:00 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:59:00 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] RE: Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: <000101c4cd93$a816f560$cf42b886@vub.ac.be> References: <000101c4cd93$a816f560$cf42b886@vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Sorry for that. There has been a technical problem at Creative Commons who manage the website. They will fix it soon. At least I hope ! S?verine >Hello, > >I cannot open the links on the international website of cc, so i cannot >study the draft licenses. > >Wim Schreurs > > >-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >Van: cc-be-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org >[mailto:cc-be-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]Namens >cc-be-request at lists.ibiblio.org >Verzonden: donderdag 18 november 2004 18:01 >Aan: cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >Onderwerp: Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 > > >Send Cc-be mailing list submissions to > cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cc-be-request at lists.ibiblio.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > cc-be-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Cc-be digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. discussion des licences (Severine Dusollier) > 2. Bijkomende bedenkingen commerci?le aspe (wolf) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:58:53 +0100 >From: Severine Dusollier >Subject: [Cc-be] discussion des licences >To: cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" > >Il reste une semaine pour discuter des licences, >version belge ! Jusqu'ici la discussion s'est >concentrie sur des questions ginirales relatives >au CC, ce qui itait trhs intiressant bien s{r... >Mais n'avez-vous aucune question, critique ou >observation sur le texte belge des licence ? >A vos claviers! > >Siverine > > >There is only one week left to discuss about the >Belgian version of the CC licenses. So far, our >discussion mainly focussed on general questions >about CC, which was interesting of course... >But do you really have no questions, criticism or >comment about the Belgian text of the CC licenses >? > >Siverine > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:25:15 +0100 >From: "wolf" >Subject: [Cc-be] Bijkomende bedenkingen commerci?le aspe >To: >Message-ID: <000001c4cd61$46eb8b20$ad00a8c0 at dv8flow> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Over de grond, > > >Het klinkt allemaal fantastisch. Maar zoals het de rechtsleer past, met >het hoofd in het ijle, hopende op een betere wereld. >Het klinkt allemaal uitermate perfect voor een veranderende >informatiewereld, maar het zijn letters op papier. >Ik hoop dat er nagedacht word over de praktische gevolgen op korte en >lange termijn? Of wordt dat een 'we zien wel'? >Dit staat te goed op mijn cv, maar ziet u verder? > >Wat zie ik? >Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. (Ik krijg wel de >mogelijkheid dit bericht te typen). >Maar vooral een paar juristen die denken dat ze weten wat goed is voor >het lot van de denkenden, >En deze schuchtere poging, die ik bij toeval moest ontdekken, lijkt dan >eerder bedoeld om het mogelijks later schuldgevoel te doven. > >Wat zie ik? >Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. Die niet zal >bewerkstelligen wat ervan verwacht wordt, >Maar naar mijn mening net het omgekeerde. De kleine artiest zal >verpletterd worden door de macht van auteursorganisaties. >Zij zullen de artiesten nog meer onder druk zetten om hun rechten af te >staan, onder het mom van de bescherming, en dat zij beter weten wat goed >voor hen is. >De grote producenten? Zullen zij niet reageren? Iets wat geld opbracht >laten schieten in deze tijden van crisis? >Of de reclamewereld? Zal die dit voorstel niet met open armen >ontvangen, en heeft die niet als enige de mogelijkheden om dit voorstel >tegen hen te keren voor wie het gemaakt is? >En wie zal hen dan nog beschermen? De auteursorganisaties? > >Wat zie ik? >Opmerkingen op een soort forum. Maar gaan ze over de kern van de zaak? >Ze gaan over de vorm, of de uitwerking en een enkele keer zelfs over de >korte termijn. >Wilt u op basis hiervan zo een belangrijke beslissingen maken? >Of op basis van uw eigen kennis van de betreffende materie, het >glorieuze auteursrecht. >Of omdat andere landen het ook doen, en het lijkt te werken? > >U voelt zich beledigd? Gepakt in uw kennis en ervaring door zo maar >iemand? >Uw werk bespot, uw goede bedoelingen in twijfel getrokken? >U hoeft niet naar mij te luisteren, lezend kan u wissen. >Maar weet dat mijn hoofd ooit zat waar het uwe nu is, >Ik weet wat u denkt, hoe u denkt - geloof me vrij >En daarom kan ik nog hopen, dat u verder denkt dan uw ivoren toren. >Laat uw goede bedoelingen, en de mogelijkheid op wat pr voor u >persoonlijk >en uw afdeling in uw 'instelling van kennis' NIET de motivatie zijn. > > >Dv8flow >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: >http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041118/3e05722e/attac >hment-0001.htm > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Cc-be mailing list >Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > > >End of Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 >*********************************** > >_______________________________________________ >Cc-be mailing list >Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Fri Nov 19 05:28:33 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:28:33 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Download problems - prolong discussion period? In-Reply-To: References: <000101c4cd93$a816f560$cf42b886@vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <419DCAD1.1040207@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Hi all, Would it be possible to have some more discussion time about the BE CC, seeing as the documents have not been available for download? Or is it absolutely vital to have a finalized text for the launch on december 10th? Hannelore Severine Dusollier wrote: > > Sorry for that. There has been a technical problem at Creative Commons > who manage the website. They will fix it soon. At least I hope ! > S?verine > > >> Hello, >> >> I cannot open the links on the international website of cc, so i cannot >> study the draft licenses. >> >> Wim Schreurs >> >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: cc-be-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org >> [mailto:cc-be-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]Namens >> cc-be-request at lists.ibiblio.org >> Verzonden: donderdag 18 november 2004 18:01 >> Aan: cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >> Onderwerp: Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 >> >> >> Send Cc-be mailing list submissions to >> cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> cc-be-request at lists.ibiblio.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> cc-be-owner at lists.ibiblio.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Cc-be digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. discussion des licences (Severine Dusollier) >> 2. Bijkomende bedenkingen commerci?le aspe (wolf) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:58:53 +0100 >> From: Severine Dusollier >> Subject: [Cc-be] discussion des licences >> To: cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" >> >> Il reste une semaine pour discuter des licences, >> version belge ! Jusqu'ici la discussion s'est >> concentrie sur des questions ginirales relatives >> au CC, ce qui itait trhs intiressant bien s{r... >> Mais n'avez-vous aucune question, critique ou >> observation sur le texte belge des licence ? >> A vos claviers! >> >> Siverine >> >> >> There is only one week left to discuss about the >> Belgian version of the CC licenses. So far, our >> discussion mainly focussed on general questions >> about CC, which was interesting of course... >> But do you really have no questions, criticism or >> comment about the Belgian text of the CC licenses >> ? >> >> Siverine >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:25:15 +0100 >> From: "wolf" >> Subject: [Cc-be] Bijkomende bedenkingen commerci?le aspe >> To: >> Message-ID: <000001c4cd61$46eb8b20$ad00a8c0 at dv8flow> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Over de grond, >> >> >> Het klinkt allemaal fantastisch. Maar zoals het de rechtsleer past, met >> het hoofd in het ijle, hopende op een betere wereld. >> Het klinkt allemaal uitermate perfect voor een veranderende >> informatiewereld, maar het zijn letters op papier. >> Ik hoop dat er nagedacht word over de praktische gevolgen op korte en >> lange termijn? Of wordt dat een 'we zien wel'? >> Dit staat te goed op mijn cv, maar ziet u verder? >> >> Wat zie ik? >> Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. (Ik krijg wel de >> mogelijkheid dit bericht te typen). >> Maar vooral een paar juristen die denken dat ze weten wat goed is voor >> het lot van de denkenden, >> En deze schuchtere poging, die ik bij toeval moest ontdekken, lijkt dan >> eerder bedoeld om het mogelijks later schuldgevoel te doven. >> >> Wat zie ik? >> Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. Die niet zal >> bewerkstelligen wat ervan verwacht wordt, >> Maar naar mijn mening net het omgekeerde. De kleine artiest zal >> verpletterd worden door de macht van auteursorganisaties. >> Zij zullen de artiesten nog meer onder druk zetten om hun rechten af te >> staan, onder het mom van de bescherming, en dat zij beter weten wat goed >> voor hen is. >> De grote producenten? Zullen zij niet reageren? Iets wat geld opbracht >> laten schieten in deze tijden van crisis? >> Of de reclamewereld? Zal die dit voorstel niet met open armen >> ontvangen, en heeft die niet als enige de mogelijkheden om dit voorstel >> tegen hen te keren voor wie het gemaakt is? >> En wie zal hen dan nog beschermen? De auteursorganisaties? >> >> Wat zie ik? >> Opmerkingen op een soort forum. Maar gaan ze over de kern van de zaak? >> Ze gaan over de vorm, of de uitwerking en een enkele keer zelfs over de >> korte termijn. >> Wilt u op basis hiervan zo een belangrijke beslissingen maken? >> Of op basis van uw eigen kennis van de betreffende materie, het >> glorieuze auteursrecht. >> Of omdat andere landen het ook doen, en het lijkt te werken? >> >> U voelt zich beledigd? Gepakt in uw kennis en ervaring door zo maar >> iemand? >> Uw werk bespot, uw goede bedoelingen in twijfel getrokken? >> U hoeft niet naar mij te luisteren, lezend kan u wissen. >> Maar weet dat mijn hoofd ooit zat waar het uwe nu is, >> Ik weet wat u denkt, hoe u denkt - geloof me vrij >> En daarom kan ik nog hopen, dat u verder denkt dan uw ivoren toren. >> Laat uw goede bedoelingen, en de mogelijkheid op wat pr voor u >> persoonlijk >> en uw afdeling in uw 'instelling van kennis' NIET de motivatie zijn. >> >> >> Dv8flow >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041118/3e05722e/attac >> >> hment-0001.htm >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cc-be mailing list >> Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be >> >> >> End of Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 >> *********************************** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cc-be mailing list >> Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > > > _______________________________________________ > Cc-be mailing list > Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > -- Hannelore Dekeyser Researcher Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Faculty of Law - K.U.Leuven Tiensestraat 41 3000 Leuven Tel: +32 16 32.54.70 Fax: +32 16 32.54.38 E-mail: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From stefan at chipsvzw.be Fri Nov 19 05:44:45 2004 From: stefan at chipsvzw.be (Stefan Kolgen) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:44:45 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Download problems - prolong discussion period? In-Reply-To: <419DCAD1.1040207@law.kuleuven.ac.be> References: <000101c4cd93$a816f560$cf42b886@vub.ac.be> <419DCAD1.1040207@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: <073074D9-3A18-11D9-AD5C-000A956E1446@chipsvzw.be> Or maybe the people from CRID can put the documents online on a temporary webserver and post the download links on this mailing list... This should have been the case anyway, not ? ;-) Yesterday, I was able to download and read the flemish version. I really don't have any comments about it. It's clear, correct and well translated. But then again, I'm not a lawyer. Looking forward for the launch. Eager to start putting the license into practice. Stefan K. -- STADSchromosomen - beeld van een stad De bloemlezing is nu beschikbaar voor download! http://www.stadschromosomen.be/14.htm -- C.H.I.P.S. vzw Tabakvest 15 bus 6 B-2000 Antwerpen Tel: +32 3 290 48 37 Mob: +32 475 610 598 E-mail: stefan at chipsvzw.be Url: http://www.chipsvzw.be/ From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Fri Nov 19 06:02:07 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:02:07 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Download problems - prolong discussion period? In-Reply-To: <419DCAD1.1040207@law.kuleuven.ac.be> References: <000101c4cd93$a816f560$cf42b886@vub.ac.be> <419DCAD1.1040207@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: To solve the problems of availiability of the licences, I have just created a webpage at: http://www.crid.be/creativecommons with all the documents and the programme of the launch event of 10 december. The webpage will be accessible this afternoon. Due to the launch event, we can't delay the public discussion, but I will discuss with CC to see what we can do (since the fault is theirs) Severine >Hi all, > >Would it be possible to have some more >discussion time about the BE CC, seeing as the >documents have not been available for download? > >Or is it absolutely vital to have a finalized >text for the launch on december 10th? > >Hannelore > >Severine Dusollier wrote: >> >>Sorry for that. There has been a technical >>problem at Creative Commons who manage the >>website. They will fix it soon. At least I hope >>! >>S?verine >> >>>Hello, >>> >>>I cannot open the links on the international website of cc, so i cannot >>>study the draft licenses. >>> >>>Wim Schreurs >>> >>> >>>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >>>Van: cc-be-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org >>>[mailto:cc-be-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]Namens >>>cc-be-request at lists.ibiblio.org >>>Verzonden: donderdag 18 november 2004 18:01 >>>Aan: cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >>>Onderwerp: Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 >>> >>> >>>Send Cc-be mailing list submissions to >>> cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >>> >>>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be >>>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> cc-be-request at lists.ibiblio.org >>> >>>You can reach the person managing the list at >>> cc-be-owner at lists.ibiblio.org >>> >>>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>than "Re: Contents of Cc-be digest..." >>> >>> >>>Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. discussion des licences (Severine Dusollier) >>> 2. Bijkomende bedenkingen commerci?le aspe (wolf) >>> >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>Message: 1 >>>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:58:53 +0100 >>>From: Severine Dusollier >>>Subject: [Cc-be] discussion des licences >>>To: cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >>>Message-ID: >>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" >>> >>>Il reste une semaine pour discuter des licences, >>>version belge ! Jusqu'ici la discussion s'est >>>concentrie sur des questions ginirales relatives >>>au CC, ce qui itait trhs intiressant bien s{r... >>>Mais n'avez-vous aucune question, critique ou >>>observation sur le texte belge des licence ? >>>A vos claviers! >>> >>>Siverine >>> >>> >>>There is only one week left to discuss about the >>>Belgian version of the CC licenses. So far, our >>>discussion mainly focussed on general questions >>>about CC, which was interesting of course... >>>But do you really have no questions, criticism or >>>comment about the Belgian text of the CC licenses >>>? >>> >>>Siverine >>> >>> >>>------------------------------ >>> >>>Message: 2 >>>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:25:15 +0100 >>>From: "wolf" >>>Subject: [Cc-be] Bijkomende bedenkingen commerci?le aspe >>>To: >>>Message-ID: <000001c4cd61$46eb8b20$ad00a8c0 at dv8flow> >>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>>Over de grond, >>> >>> >>>Het klinkt allemaal fantastisch. Maar zoals het de rechtsleer past, met >>>het hoofd in het ijle, hopende op een betere wereld. >>>Het klinkt allemaal uitermate perfect voor een veranderende >>>informatiewereld, maar het zijn letters op papier. >>>Ik hoop dat er nagedacht word over de praktische gevolgen op korte en >>>lange termijn? Of wordt dat een 'we zien wel'? >>>Dit staat te goed op mijn cv, maar ziet u verder? >>> >>>Wat zie ik? >>>Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. (Ik krijg wel de >>>mogelijkheid dit bericht te typen). >>>Maar vooral een paar juristen die denken dat ze weten wat goed is voor >>>het lot van de denkenden, >>>En deze schuchtere poging, die ik bij toeval moest ontdekken, lijkt dan >>>eerder bedoeld om het mogelijks later schuldgevoel te doven. >>> >>>Wat zie ik? >>>Een bewonderenswaardige poging, met veel goede wil. Die niet zal >>>bewerkstelligen wat ervan verwacht wordt, >>>Maar naar mijn mening net het omgekeerde. De kleine artiest zal >>>verpletterd worden door de macht van auteursorganisaties. >>>Zij zullen de artiesten nog meer onder druk zetten om hun rechten af te >>>staan, onder het mom van de bescherming, en dat zij beter weten wat goed >>>voor hen is. >>>De grote producenten? Zullen zij niet reageren? Iets wat geld opbracht >>>laten schieten in deze tijden van crisis? >>>Of de reclamewereld? Zal die dit voorstel niet met open armen >>>ontvangen, en heeft die niet als enige de mogelijkheden om dit voorstel >>>tegen hen te keren voor wie het gemaakt is? >>>En wie zal hen dan nog beschermen? De auteursorganisaties? >>> >>>Wat zie ik? >>>Opmerkingen op een soort forum. Maar gaan ze over de kern van de zaak? >>>Ze gaan over de vorm, of de uitwerking en een enkele keer zelfs over de >>>korte termijn. >>>Wilt u op basis hiervan zo een belangrijke beslissingen maken? >>>Of op basis van uw eigen kennis van de betreffende materie, het >>>glorieuze auteursrecht. >>>Of omdat andere landen het ook doen, en het lijkt te werken? >>> >>>U voelt zich beledigd? Gepakt in uw kennis en ervaring door zo maar >>>iemand? >>>Uw werk bespot, uw goede bedoelingen in twijfel getrokken? >>>U hoeft niet naar mij te luisteren, lezend kan u wissen. >>>Maar weet dat mijn hoofd ooit zat waar het uwe nu is, >>>Ik weet wat u denkt, hoe u denkt - geloof me vrij >>>En daarom kan ik nog hopen, dat u verder denkt dan uw ivoren toren. >>>Laat uw goede bedoelingen, en de mogelijkheid op wat pr voor u >>>persoonlijk >>>en uw afdeling in uw 'instelling van kennis' NIET de motivatie zijn. >>> >>> >>>Dv8flow >>>-------------- next part -------------- >>>An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>URL: >>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041118/3e05722e/attac >>>hment-0001.htm >>> >>>------------------------------ >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Cc-be mailing list >>>Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be >>> >>> >>>End of Cc-be Digest, Vol 2, Issue 5 >>>*********************************** >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Cc-be mailing list >>>Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Cc-be mailing list >>Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be >> > >-- >Hannelore Dekeyser >Researcher >Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology >Faculty of Law - K.U.Leuven >Tiensestraat 41 >3000 Leuven > >Tel: +32 16 32.54.70 >Fax: +32 16 32.54.38 >E-mail: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be >Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri -- S?verine Dusollier Centre de Recherche Informatique et Droit - Responsable du D?partement Droits Intellectuels Ma?tre de Conf?rences aux Facult?s Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix de Namur Rempart de la Vierge 5 T?l: +32 81 72 47 60 5000 NAMUR Fax: +32 81 72 52 02 BELGIQUE severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be http://www.crid.be From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Fri Nov 19 06:34:23 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:34:23 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Download problems - prolong discussion period? In-Reply-To: <4E6AB26C-3A1C-11D9-9B2B-003065D5701A@minimoa.net> References: <000101c4cd93$a816f560$cf42b886@vub.ac.be> <419DCAD1.1040207@law.kuleuven.ac.be> <4E6AB26C-3A1C-11D9-9B2B-003065D5701A@minimoa.net> Message-ID: As I said in a previous mail posted on the list earlier today, the problem comes from the CC team who is in charge of the website.The licenses were ready in early September and they posted them on the website only in mid October. It took them another month to post the Dutch version. And we have asked them for weeks now to correct some mistakes in the text of introduction. Now the licenses are not available. We sent many emails to try to fix all that... An alternative webpage including all the necessary material for Belgium will be available this afternoon at http://www.crid.be/creativecommons Severine From alexandre.dulaunoy at ael.be Sun Nov 21 12:59:29 2004 From: alexandre.dulaunoy at ael.be (Alexandre Dulaunoy) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:59:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Cc-be] Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions. Message-ID: Hi All, Here is my 'quick' comments on the CCs and the effort of adaptation in Belgium. A large part of the comments is regarding the CCs on a global scale but some points [BE prefix] are related to the local/national adaptation. [rev. 0.0.1] * Disclaimer Only the "free" perspective and the collaborative framework creator/works is taken in consideration. * Introduction or do I understand the CCs ? First of all, I want to be sure that I understood the CCs and the coverage of CCs. The CCs coverage is primarily the non-functional works[1] therefore functional works are normally covered by other licenses. Functional works are software, "computer programs", functional documentation[2] or works having an integrated part of another functional works. But digital society is evolving to more and more functional works, a lot of non-functional work can become functional by the need to make (for example) derivative works. Its easier to make derivative works when you have the initial "source" of the works. This is not the scope of the comments. CCs is a framework proposed to authors/creators to pick various licenses by granting or revoking certains of their rights. It's difficult to find exactly which licences can be considered as free[3] as a large part is clearly non-free[4] but proposes a clarification of old classical approach (e.g. : No Derivative and/or No Commercial is a clarification of the old proprietary concept "Shareware"). [BE/Global] CCs should use a clear terminology when using "free"/libre/vrij terms. Are the proposed licenses free or not ? an update to the existing could be a good way. CCs are here to simplify the work of the authors/creators to choose a "license" without too much legal complexity and to limit the number of works with no exclusive rights open (default rule of copyrights). If you feel I misunderstand something, please let me know. * My comments on the belgian transposition : (Scope : Compatibilities or can I exchange work with CCs world and/or the other communities ? DRM clause issue ? 2001/29/CE still not transposed in Belgium but why using terminology from it ? Moral rights and patrimonial rights in CCs ?) [Note: in this case, 'use' is using the original work in another new original work] [BE] Are the BE adaptation of the CCs licenses are all compatible with the other respective adaptation ? Can I use a content licensed under the CC-SA-1.0(en) in my work licensed work with a CC-SA-2.0(be-fr) ? In the case of CC-NC, a author in US wants to use my work licensed under a CC-NC-SA-2.0(be-nl) but the belgian translation removed the lending rights ? How can I proceed with this issue without contacting the author ? and by contacting the author ? Can you show us a practical example ? [BE/Global] Are the BE adaption compatible the other CCs ? is there a compatibility matrix available somewhere with all the CCs licences ? [BE] Moral rights and use of DRM/TPMs. How can you ensure the scope of the moral rights exercice to format only ? It wouldn't be better to exclude fully moral rights on the various licences ? or to force the scope on the 'patrimonial' side only ? [BE/EU] Regarding the implementation of the 2001/29/CE, the "copyright management information" of the article 7 is closely linked to the article 6 of the 2001/29/CE. I'm really afraid that could be used to clearly revoke the 4a stating the opposite. Why do you want to use this terminology as the transposition is not done in Belgium ? Why not keeping "copyright notice" ? [BE] Can you explain the 8e modification ? [BE] Is all the exceptions in Section 5 (Exceptions aux droits) from "loi du 30 juin 1994" (from Art. 21 to Art. 24) in the licences practicable ? A quick feedback, feel free to comment (I open to discuss all aspects), Thanks a lot for your work, Kind regards, adulau PS : Do you plan to make a transposition of others CCs initiative like the public domain certification. Can we imagine to make a similar certification in the european region and in Belgium ? This would be great to add more free works inside the free digital community. [1] http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3646 [2] http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3647 [3] There is no clear definition of "free" for non-functional digital works. Free concepts are in the functional world : http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [4] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html -- ** Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) **** http://www.foo.be/ **** 0x44E6CBCD **/ "To disable the Internet to save EMI and Disney is the moral **/ equivalent of burning down the library of Alexandria to ensure the **/ livelihood of monastic scribes." Jon Ippolito. From cc-be at minimoa.net Sun Nov 21 15:04:05 2004 From: cc-be at minimoa.net (Stefaan Huysentruyt) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:04:05 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] DRM + ongewenste associatie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7EFD787E-3BF8-11D9-A972-003065D5701A@minimoa.net> Beste, Lees ik goed, als ik begrijp dat bij het aanvaarden van een CC licentie het voor de licentienemer _steeds_ verboden is om DRM (Digital Rights Management) technieken of andere (encryptie enz...) te gebruiken die beperking oplegt, geografisch of andere, bij het benutten van het werk (4a), ongeacht de persoonlijke restricties die de licentiegever via de CC kan kiezen? Is er een mogelijkheid om te verhinderen dat je werk - uit zijn context maar - in associatie wordt gebracht met mensonterende idee?n en propaganda zoals door racistische of haat predikende organen? Stefaan Huysentruyt Vogelwikkestraat 7 B-8210 VELDEGEM Belgium voice: +32-50-281650 cell: +32-486-976496 mailto:stefaan.huysentruytAPESTAARTminimoa.net From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 21 16:39:23 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:39:23 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q1 Contract vs Licence Message-ID: <41A10B0B.6060304@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Dear all, I would like to ask some specific questions about the Belgian translation, specifically from a legal point of view. I will split my questions into different posts, so we don't have to discuss all of them in one thread. First I want to note that I'm more familiar with the GPL than the CC, but as they are closely related this should not be a problem. Some of my questions stem from things I learned while studying the GPL. Question 1. Contract vs. licence? In the U.S. there is always discussion whether the open source licences are contracts or not. Lawrence Rosen stresses that it is a licence, not a contract. The reason is that copyright is regulated federally, while contract law is regulated by the states. Is a copyright licence always a contract in Belgian law? Is this a purely academic question? A user isn't allowed to reproduce/distribute a work without the authors' permission. The licence gives the user permission. If he accepts the licence, a contract is formed. Otherwise there is no contract, but it makes little difference in the end. The user can choose to rely on the licence to reproduce/distribute a work or not to use it. Alternatively he can rely on the exceptions allowed by copyright law, which are much narrower than the CCPL licence. So however you turn it, the author is in a comfortable position. Or am I missing something? The contract vs. licence issue pops up in the second paragraph of the licence (BE-CCPL: By using the work in a way covered by any rights provided here...) In the footnote you refer to the controverse concerning acceptation by the mere use of the work. This refers to the implicit conclusion of contracts, I assume. This is only problematic if a copyright license is by its nature a contract in Belgian law. The next sentence of this paragraph just means that it this is a conditional contract/licence (CCPL+BE-CCPL: The licensor grants you the rights contained here in consideration of your acceptance of such terms and conditions.) It doesn't really matter which it is. Wouldn't it be preferable not to use the term 'contract' in the Belgian CCPL at all? This way, discussions whether a contract was formed or not, are sidestepped. The term 'contract' is not used in the original CCPL The iCommons page mentions that they "strive for utmost similarity between the licenses worldwide". (http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/overview ) The term contract is used in several places in the BE-CCPL. In the subtitle: Dutch: Licence (licentie) French: Licence agreement (Contrat de licence) English: Legal code Could the French term 'Contrat de licence' be changed to 'Licence'? Or is that FrAnglais? The English term 'legal code' is even more neutral with regard to the discussion above, but it is a bit artificial. 'Juridische tekst' - 'texte juridique' / 'juridische bepalingen' - 'stipulations juridiques' could be used as a closer translation, but it doesn't say very much. The term 'contract' also appears in the disclaimer, but only in the english version. "Distribution of this draft licence does not create any legal or contractual relationship between the _contracting parties under this licence_ and creative commons." This could be replaced with "parties to this licence", conform to the French and Dutch version. I'm very curious to hear your views. Kind regards, Hannelore From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 21 16:43:50 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:43:50 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Question 2. Accepting the licence: using the work or exercising the rights Message-ID: <41A10C16.3040908@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Hi all, Question 2. Accepting the licence: using the work or exercising the rights Original CCPL: By exercising any rights to the work provided here, you accept and agree to be bound by the terms of this licence. BE-CCPL: By using a work in a way covered by any rights provided here... I don't really understand why this modification was made. What is the issue you are trying to solve? Is the goal to limit the scope to exercising rights to the work that are covered by copyright law? What if a user claims to have a patent (inasfar as that is possible) or claims some other right to the work? The user could continue to benefit from the license while sueing others for patent infringement? Hannelore From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 21 16:46:15 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:46:15 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q3. a "Collective work" Message-ID: <41A10CA7.1090305@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Question 3. a "Collective work" Out of curiosity, why do you explicitely refer to the definition of a collective work made by the French Code of Intellectual Property? Isn't this confusing for users? Also, there are other terms you might *not* want a collective work to refer to. For instance a database in the sense of art. 20 bis of the Copyright law of June 30th, 1994 and art. 2 of the Database law of August 31st, 1998. Could you achieve the same goal by writing: "the term Collective work has a specific meaning in this licence, namely a work..." Hannelore From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 21 16:51:08 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:51:08 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q4. Derivative work Message-ID: <41A10DCC.5040901@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Q4. Derivative work Art 1 b) A derivative work means.... CCPL: ... any other form in which the Work may be ... adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective work will not be considered a Derivative Work... BE-CCPL.nl: ...of elke andere vorm waarin het Werk ... bewerkt kan worden, met uitzondering van de Collectieve werken, die niet als Afgeleide werken zullen beschouwd worden... BE-CCPL.fr: ...ou toute autre forme sous laquelle l'Oeuvre peut ?tre...adapt?e, ? l'exception des Oeuvres Collectives, qui ne seront pas consid?r?es comme des Oeuvres D?riv?es... From a strictly logical standpoint, the Belgian version says: A Work that is transformed constitutes a Derivative work, except if _it_ is a Collective work. What is _it_? The initial work? The transformed work? In the first case: you can transform a collective work into another work, without having a derivative work as a result. This is not what the CCPL means. In the latter case: if upon transformation you have a collective work, the result is not a derivative work. This is what the CCPL means. This could be solved by putting the exception in a separate sentence: BE-CCPL.nl*: Een uitzondering geldt voor Collectieve werken, die niet als Afgeleide werken zullen beschouwd worden in de zin van deze licentie. BE-CCPL.fr*: Par exception, les Oeuvres collectives ne seront pas consid?r?es comme des Oeuvres d?riv?es aux termes de la pr?sente licence. Hannelore From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 21 16:54:38 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:54:38 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q5 You: exercising rights vs using work Message-ID: <41A10E9E.3000302@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Q5. You I guess this question is related to my second question about accepting the licence. art. 1 f) You CCPL: "You" means an individual or entity exercising rights under this licence... BE-CCPL: "You" means an individual or entity using the work in a way covered by any rights under this Licence... Why is there a shift from exercising rights to using the work? In my opinion the original wording is much compacter and legible for non-lawyers. Keeping in mind the goal to keep the utmost similarity between the licenses worldwide, why not just say: BE-CCPL.nl*: Met "U" wordt de natuurlijke persoon of rechtspersoon bedoeld die de rechten verleend door deze licentie uitoefent... BE-CCPL.fr*: Par "Vous" on entend la personne physique ou morale qui exercise les droits conf?r? par cette licence... Hannelore From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 21 16:56:41 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:56:41 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q6. Future forms of exploitation Message-ID: <41A10F19.20209@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Q6. Future forms of exploitation Art. 3 ?1 alinea 6 of the Copyright law states that contracts whereby the author transfers his rights with regard to unknown forms of exploitation are void. This rule is why art. 3 last paragraph of the CCPL is modified, I suppose. The original CCPL says "The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised." The BE-CCPL limits this to media and formats known today. Was this modification absolutely necessary? It depends partly on the interpretation of the term media. The term 'media' might mean the physical support on which the work is stored. In the future, new physical supports will be invented. But using such a new physical support, doesn't have to imply that this is a new form of exploitation. What does it matter if a file is stored on a disk, a CD-ROM or a DVD? New formats don't imply new forms of exploitation either. The term 'media' can also mean channel to distribute information, like radio, television and internet. If a new channel is invented, then there will probably be new forms of exploitation. A possible alternative might be: "The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised, with the exception of forms of exploitation unknown at the time this licence was given." However, it is unclear how a licensee will find out when the original Author licenced the work. This is a tough one. Hannelore From wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be Sun Nov 21 18:37:33 2004 From: wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be (Wouter Vanden hove) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:37:33 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] creativecommons.be Message-ID: <41A126BD.8080903@pandora.be> http://creativecommons.be seems to be registered by CC can't it refer to http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/be/ ? Domein details Domein Naam creativecommons Status REGISTERED Registratie 11 maart 2004 Laatste wijziging 11 maart 2004 17:13 Licentienemer Naam Asschenfeldt Christiane Taal Engels Adres licensee address Email licensee email Onsite contactpersonen Naam French-connexion French-connexion Taal Engels Adres 5 avenue Raymond F and eacute;raud 06200 NA FR Email g.vandenberghe at french-connexion.fr wouter opencursus.org skepp.be From yorick.cool at fundp.ac.be Mon Nov 22 06:38:32 2004 From: yorick.cool at fundp.ac.be (Yorick Cool) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:38:32 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q1 Contract vs Licence In-Reply-To: <41A10B0B.6060304@law.kuleuven.ac.be> References: <41A10B0B.6060304@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A1CFB8.7020208@fundp.ac.be> Dear Hannelore, to me, the key problem in the Contract vs License problem is that of reliability. In belgian law, without a contract, you owe nothing to noone. Especially, a licensor has all opportunity to change his mind and stop allowing use/modification/distribution of his software. Nothing guarantees a user against such a change of mind on the licensor's behalf except a contract. What's more, the absence of any "consideration doctrine" in belgian law makes it easy to satisfy the condition of formation of a contract. Hence, there is no practical obstacle as to treating an open-source license as a contract. In the end, we also have to admit that "license" doesn't mean much in belgian legal speak. I am also quite surprised about your remarks about Larry Rosen. He explicitly advocates the "contractual" theory: "Open-source licenses should be clean well written contracts, or they may not be enforced by the courts" L. Rosen, open source licensing, Prentice Hall, p. 140. He does say the GPL is probably not a contract, but concludes it is the only one to be in that situation. I also have a gripes with his conclusion the GPL is not a contract, but this is not the place to discuss that ;-) (I will hint that to me, copyleft gives consideration to the contract) Best regards, -- Yorick Cool Chercheur au C.R.I.D. Rempart de la Vierge 5 5000 NAMUR BELGIQUE T?l: +32 81 72 47 62 Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > Dear all, > > I would like to ask some specific questions about the Belgian > translation, specifically from a legal point of view. > > I will split my questions into different posts, so we don't have to > discuss all of them in one thread. > > First I want to note that I'm more familiar with the GPL than the CC, > but as they are closely related this should not be a problem. Some of my > questions stem from things I learned while studying the GPL. > > > > Question 1. Contract vs. licence? > > In the U.S. there is always discussion whether the open source licences > are contracts or not. > Lawrence Rosen stresses that it is a licence, not a contract. The > reason is that copyright is regulated federally, while contract law is > regulated by the states. > > Is a copyright licence always a contract in Belgian law? > Is this a purely academic question? > > A user isn't allowed to reproduce/distribute a work without the authors' > permission. > The licence gives the user permission. If he accepts the licence, a > contract is formed. > Otherwise there is no contract, but it makes little difference in the end. > The user can choose to rely on the licence to reproduce/distribute a > work or not to use it. > Alternatively he can rely on the exceptions allowed by copyright law, > which are much narrower than the CCPL licence. > > So however you turn it, the author is in a comfortable position. Or am > I missing something? > > The contract vs. licence issue pops up in the second paragraph of the > licence (BE-CCPL: By using the work in a way covered by any rights > provided here...) > In the footnote you refer to the controverse concerning acceptation by > the mere use of the work. > This refers to the implicit conclusion of contracts, I assume. This is > only problematic if a copyright license is by its nature a contract > in Belgian law. > > The next sentence of this paragraph just means that it this is a > conditional contract/licence (CCPL+BE-CCPL: The licensor grants you the > rights contained here in consideration of your acceptance of such terms > and conditions.) It doesn't really matter which it is. > > > Wouldn't it be preferable not to use the term 'contract' in the Belgian > CCPL at all? This way, discussions whether a contract was formed or not, > are sidestepped. The term 'contract' is not used in the original CCPL > > The iCommons page mentions that they "strive for utmost similarity > between the licenses worldwide". > (http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/overview ) > > The term contract is used in several places in the BE-CCPL. > > In the subtitle: > Dutch: Licence (licentie) > French: Licence agreement (Contrat de licence) > English: Legal code > > Could the French term 'Contrat de licence' be changed to 'Licence'? Or > is that FrAnglais? > > The English term 'legal code' is even more neutral with regard to the > discussion above, but it is a bit artificial. 'Juridische tekst' - > 'texte juridique' / 'juridische bepalingen' - 'stipulations juridiques' > could be used as a closer translation, but it doesn't say very much. > > > The term 'contract' also appears in the disclaimer, but only in the > english version. > "Distribution of this draft licence does not create any legal or > contractual relationship between the _contracting parties under this > licence_ and creative commons." > This could be replaced with "parties to this licence", conform to the > French and Dutch version. > > I'm very curious to hear your views. > > Kind regards, > > Hannelore > > _______________________________________________ > Cc-be mailing list > Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > > -- Yorick Cool Chercheur au C.R.I.D. Rempart de la Vierge 5 5000 NAMUR BELGIQUE T?l: +32 81 72 47 62 From wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be Mon Nov 22 08:48:26 2004 From: wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be (Wouter Vanden hove) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:48:26 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q1 Contract vs Licence In-Reply-To: <41A1CFB8.7020208@fundp.ac.be> References: <41A10B0B.6060304@law.kuleuven.ac.be> <41A1CFB8.7020208@fundp.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A1EE2A.8030301@pandora.be> Yorick Cool wrote: > Dear Hannelore, > to me, the key problem in the Contract vs License problem is that of > reliability. I thought the key problem was with downstream users and modifiers who never were in contact with the original author. And what happens if somebody in the distributors-chain violated the license? > In belgian law, without a contract, you owe nothing to > noone. Due to the default copyright law and the Berne Convention a user of a copyrighted work owes permission to the author. You need written permission from an author to distribute a work. A license is that written permission. Especially, a licensor has all opportunity to change his mind and > stop allowing use/modification/distribution of his software. License means "You are allowed to..." it allows you to do something that would otherwise be illegal. If an author gives you an *irrevocable* license to distributie his work, then that's what you are allowed to do. Nothing > guarantees a user against such a change of mind on the licensor's behalf > except a contract. A licensor can and may change his licensing-decision. But the copies that are out in the wild, already have a permission to distribute/modify attached. If you have a CC-licensed website, you can remove it anytime. you don't have a single obligation to the visitors of your website. > What's more, the absence of any "consideration doctrine" in belgian law > makes it easy to satisfy the condition of formation of a contract. Can you explain "consideration doctrine"? I am not a lawyer. :) > Hence, there is no practical obstacle as to treating an open-source > license as a contract. I thought a contract could only be valid if both parties read it and agreed to it. If a contract, does this mean the CC-license must be preceed to the work, force the user to read it and agree upon it, like a software-EULA? > In the end, we also have to admit that "license" doesn't mean much in > belgian legal speak. Driver's license... fishing license... sports license... don't mean much in belgian legal speak? > I am also quite surprised about your remarks about Larry Rosen. He > explicitly advocates the "contractual" theory: "Open-source licenses > should be clean well written contracts, or they may not be enforced by > the courts" L. Rosen, open source licensing, Prentice Hall, p. 140. This contradicts Eben Moglen. Default copyright law makes the big difference. You don't have anything like that with ordinary contracts. Enforcing the GPL, I http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html Enforcing the GPL, II http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 Inside the GPL: Licenses Versus Contracts http://www.awprofessional.com/articles/article.asp?p=212176&seqNum=3 "There are a number of things that a contract must have in order to be legally binding. For example, a contract usually consists of the following items, and in many cases is required to include these items: * Offer * Acceptance of the offer * Promise to perform * Valuable consideration * Terms and conditions for performance * Performance" > He does say the GPL is probably not a contract, but concludes it is the > only one to be in that situation. GPL the only FLOSS license not to be a contract? I also have a gripes with his > conclusion the GPL is not a contract, but this is not the place to > discuss that ;-) I believe the discussion "license versus contract" is generic to all FLOSS-like licenses. wouter Vanden Hove www.opencursus.org www.vrijschrift.org From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Mon Nov 22 07:58:14 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:58:14 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q1 Contract vs Licence In-Reply-To: <41A1CFB8.7020208@fundp.ac.be> References: <41A10B0B.6060304@law.kuleuven.ac.be> <41A1CFB8.7020208@fundp.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A1E266.6050703@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Dear Yorick, Yorick Cool wrote: > Dear Hannelore, > > to me, the key problem in the Contract vs License problem is that of > reliability. In belgian law, without a contract, you owe nothing to > noone. Especially, a licensor has all opportunity to change his mind and > stop allowing use/modification/distribution of his software. Nothing > guarantees a user against such a change of mind on the licensor's behalf > except a contract. I agree with you here, though art. 7 b) seems to say that the Licensor cannot withdraw the license. He can stop distributing in the future, but the works that are already 'in the wild' cannot be called back so to speak. > > What's more, the absence of any "consideration doctrine" in belgian law > makes it easy to satisfy the condition of formation of a contract. > Hence, there is no practical obstacle as to treating an open-source > license as a contract. > > In the end, we also have to admit that "license" doesn't mean much in > belgian legal speak. Maybe, but I see it as a unilateral act of the Licensor giving permission to 'violate' his copyright monopoly. In practice it hardly makes a difference. > > I am also quite surprised about your remarks about Larry Rosen. He > explicitly advocates the "contractual" theory: "Open-source licenses > should be clean well written contracts, or they may not be enforced by > the courts" L. Rosen, open source licensing, Prentice Hall, p. 140. He > does say the GPL is probably not a contract, but concludes it is the > only one to be in that situation. I also have a gripes with his > conclusion the GPL is not a contract, but this is not the place to > discuss that ;-) (I will hint that to me, copyleft gives consideration > to the contract) My mistake, I meant Eben Moglen. Sorry about that. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 I guess we agree that it is to a large extent an academic discussion in Belgian law. Do you think my suggestion to not use the term 'contract' in the Belgian CCPL is not necessary? I still think it might be a good idea, even if it is only to translate the original text as closely as possible. Best regards, Hannelore From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Mon Nov 22 08:26:06 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:26:06 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q1 Contract vs Licence In-Reply-To: <41A1EE2A.8030301@pandora.be> References: <41A10B0B.6060304@law.kuleuven.ac.be> <41A1CFB8.7020208@fundp.ac.be> <41A1EE2A.8030301@pandora.be> Message-ID: <41A1E8EE.4080008@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Wouter Vanden hove wrote: > Yorick Cool wrote: > >> Dear Hannelore, > > >> to me, the key problem in the Contract vs License problem is that of >> reliability. > > > I thought the key problem was with downstream users and modifiers who > never were in contact with the original author. > I think article 8 b) solves this. A gives a work with CC licence to B. B gives it to C. Article 8 b) states that automatically A gives a licence to C. Legal magic. Every sublicensor has received a licence from all his predecessors. > And what happens if somebody in the distributors-chain violated the > license? > Since you automatically have a licence from the Original Author (A in my example above), all you have to do is respect the licence terms yourself. You don't need to worry about what B does. If B creates a derivative and distributes it in violation of the CCPL licence, you could have a problem. > >> In belgian law, without a contract, you owe nothing to noone. > > > Due to the default copyright law and the Berne Convention > a user of a copyrighted work owes permission to the author. > > You need written permission from an author to distribute a work. A > license is that written permission. > Yes, but the author doesn't owe the user anything. That was what Yorick meant, I think. > >> Especially, a licensor has all opportunity to change his mind and > >> stop allowing use/modification/distribution of his software. > > > License means "You are allowed to..." > it allows you to do something that would otherwise be illegal. > > If an author gives you an *irrevocable* license to distributie his work, > then that's what you are allowed to do. > > >> Nothing > >> guarantees a user against such a change of mind on the licensor's >> behalf except a contract. > I think the CCPL adresses this in art. 7 b. > > A licensor can and may change his licensing-decision. > But the copies that are out in the wild, already have a permission to > distribute/modify attached. > > If you have a CC-licensed website, you can remove it anytime. > you don't have a single obligation to the visitors of your website. > > >> What's more, the absence of any "consideration doctrine" in belgian >> law makes it easy to satisfy the condition of formation of a contract. > > Can you explain "consideration doctrine"? > I am not a lawyer. :) > This is an American doctrine, and doesn't apply in Belgian law. Roughly it means that both parties must get *something* out of a contract, otherwise it isn't valid. So, if A gives you a car but doesn't get anything in return, the deal is not a contract. How this applies to CCPL is under debate. In Belgium you have a contract when you agree to something. For instance A gives a car to B and B agrees to accept it. It doesn't matter whether or not B gives something back. > > >> Hence, there is no practical obstacle as to treating an open-source >> license as a contract. > > > I thought a contract could only be valid if both parties read it and > agreed to it. > If a contract, does this mean the CC-license must be preceed to the > work, force the user to read it and agree upon it, like a software-EULA? > You can accept a contract by saying 'I accept'. You can accept a contract by opening the box of a product (acceptance by breaking a seal). You can accept a contract by using a work, if you knew or should have known that by using it you are accepting a contract. So using a CCPL'ed work can mean accepting a contract in Belgian law. However, in practice it isn't always clear when you should have known that using means accepting a contract. > >> In the end, we also have to admit that "license" doesn't mean much in >> belgian legal speak. > > > Driver's license... > fishing license... > sports license... > > don't mean much in belgian legal speak? > This is different. These are examples of administrative decisions. The government gives you permission to drive a car, to fish ... Calling it a licence is everyday language, not legal jargon. In legalese these are goverment decisions. > > >> I am also quite surprised about your remarks about Larry Rosen. He >> explicitly advocates the "contractual" theory: "Open-source licenses >> should be clean well written contracts, or they may not be enforced by >> the courts" L. Rosen, open source licensing, Prentice Hall, p. 140. > > > This contradicts Eben Moglen. > > Default copyright law makes the big difference. > You don't have anything like that with ordinary contracts. > > Enforcing the GPL, I > http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html > > Enforcing the GPL, II > http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html > > The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 > > Inside the GPL: Licenses Versus Contracts > http://www.awprofessional.com/articles/article.asp?p=212176&seqNum=3 > > "There are a number of things that a contract must have in order to be > legally binding. For example, a contract usually consists of the > following items, and in many cases is required to include these items: > > * Offer > * Acceptance of the offer > * Promise to perform > * Valuable consideration > * Terms and conditions for performance > * Performance" > This is American law. In Belgium all you need is an offer and acceptance. His conclusions aren't per se relevant to the Belgian discussion. In the US, it is better for Open Source licences to be a licence and not a contract. Copyright law (and therefor) licences are regulated by 1 federal law on copyright. Contracts law is state law, so 50 different contract laws would apply. > >> He does say the GPL is probably not a contract, but concludes it is >> the only one to be in that situation. > > > GPL the only FLOSS license not to be a contract? > Again, in the American context. > > > I also have a gripes with his > >> conclusion the GPL is not a contract, but this is not the place to >> discuss that ;-) > > I believe the discussion "license versus contract" is generic to all > FLOSS-like licenses. It is different in every country. Kind regards, Hannelore > > > wouter Vanden Hove > www.opencursus.org > www.vrijschrift.org > _______________________________________________ > Cc-be mailing list > Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > -- Hannelore Dekeyser Researcher Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Faculty of Law - K.U.Leuven Tiensestraat 41 3000 Leuven Tel: +32 16 32.54.70 Fax: +32 16 32.54.38 E-mail: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From yorick.cool at fundp.ac.be Mon Nov 22 15:10:48 2004 From: yorick.cool at fundp.ac.be (Yorick Cool) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:10:48 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q1 Contract vs Licence In-Reply-To: <41A1E8EE.4080008@law.kuleuven.ac.be> References: <41A10B0B.6060304@law.kuleuven.ac.be> <41A1CFB8.7020208@fundp.ac.be> <41A1EE2A.8030301@pandora.be> <41A1E8EE.4080008@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A247C8.6070009@fundp.ac.be> Hannelore has adequately answered most of the issues here, but I shall further some of her comments below. I have omitted some parts when I had nothing to add to Hannelore's comments. Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > > > Wouter Vanden hove wrote: > >> Yorick Cool wrote: >>> In belgian law, without a contract, you owe nothing to noone. >> >> >> >> Due to the default copyright law and the Berne Convention >> a user of a copyrighted work owes permission to the author. >> >> You need written permission from an author to distribute a work. A >> license is that written permission. >> > Yes, but the author doesn't owe the user anything. That was what Yorick > meant, I think. Absolutely. Most glaringly, the author can change his mind on day X and sue for breach of copyrigt on day X+1, regardless of the license he conceded. In belgian law, without a contract you have every right to change your mind and CANNOT suscribe a so-called "irrevocable" obligation. I see Wouter has read Eben Moglen, which is very good, but one must hold in mind that a) Eben Moglen has an agenda of his own b) His analysises, however right or wrong in american law, are inapplicable to belgian law. There simply is no such thing as a binding obligation that does not stem from either the law or a contract in belgian law. Hence, the impossibility to enforce the license against the licensor if it is not a contract. No matter what clause is in the license, if the license is not a contract, it is retractable by the licensor at will (except for blatant bad faith or what will you, but such doctrines are less potent than promissory estoppel for example). >>> What's more, the absence of any "consideration doctrine" in belgian >>> law makes it easy to satisfy the condition of formation of a contract. >> >> >> Can you explain "consideration doctrine"? >> I am not a lawyer. :) >> > This is an American doctrine, and doesn't apply in Belgian law. > Roughly it means that both parties must get *something* out of a > contract, otherwise it isn't valid. > So, if A gives you a car but doesn't get anything in return, the deal is > not a contract. How this applies to CCPL is under debate. In my humble opinion, the "copyleft", i.e. the fact that derivatives can be made available, but only under an identical licence is consideration enough. Considering that case-law has accepted a mere moral interest as consideration enough, I'd say the simple interest the licensor has in having the opportunity to benefit from enhancements of his works give him good consideration. This is of course debatable. The (potential) absence of consideration is one of the reasons the FSF pushes against the qualification of contract. As Hannelore very well pointed out, there is no such problem in belgian law. Best regards, Yorick From yorick.cool at fundp.ac.be Mon Nov 22 15:23:41 2004 From: yorick.cool at fundp.ac.be (Yorick Cool) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:23:41 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q1 Contract vs Licence In-Reply-To: <41A1E266.6050703@law.kuleuven.ac.be> References: <41A10B0B.6060304@law.kuleuven.ac.be> <41A1CFB8.7020208@fundp.ac.be> <41A1E266.6050703@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A24ACD.7010309@fundp.ac.be> Dear Hannelore, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > Dear Yorick, > > Yorick Cool wrote: > >> Dear Hannelore, >> >> to me, the key problem in the Contract vs License problem is that of >> reliability. In belgian law, without a contract, you owe nothing to >> noone. Especially, a licensor has all opportunity to change his mind >> and stop allowing use/modification/distribution of his software. >> Nothing guarantees a user against such a change of mind on the >> licensor's behalf except a contract. > > > I agree with you here, though art. 7 b) seems to say that the Licensor > cannot withdraw the license. He can stop distributing in the future, > but the works that are already 'in the wild' cannot be called back so to > speak. I agree with you insofar as the license is considered a contract. If it is not, I still believe the licensor could call back the works out in the wild, because nothing would bind him not to (the weakness of the unilateral engagement). At the moment we consider the license a contract, I share your analysis fully. > >> >> What's more, the absence of any "consideration doctrine" in belgian >> law makes it easy to satisfy the condition of formation of a contract. >> Hence, there is no practical obstacle as to treating an open-source >> license as a contract. >> >> In the end, we also have to admit that "license" doesn't mean much in >> belgian legal speak. > > > Maybe, but I see it as a unilateral act of the Licensor giving > permission to 'violate' his copyright monopoly. > In practice it hardly makes a difference. Again, I believe the difference is that the unilateral act is retractable. He is not bound to maintain it. > >> >> I am also quite surprised about your remarks about Larry Rosen. He >> explicitly advocates the "contractual" theory: "Open-source licenses >> should be clean well written contracts, or they may not be enforced by >> the courts" L. Rosen, open source licensing, Prentice Hall, p. 140. He >> does say the GPL is probably not a contract, but concludes it is the >> only one to be in that situation. I also have a gripes with his >> conclusion the GPL is not a contract, but this is not the place to >> discuss that ;-) (I will hint that to me, copyleft gives consideration >> to the contract) > > > My mistake, I meant Eben Moglen. Sorry about that. > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 > > I guess we agree that it is to a large extent an academic discussion in > Belgian law. Absolutely, even though I do side with Rosen more than Moglen even in american law. Moglen's agenda blurrs his analysis in my view. To each his own :-) > > Do you think my suggestion to not use the term 'contract' in the Belgian > CCPL is not necessary? > I still think it might be a good idea, even if it is only to translate > the original text as closely as possible. I am personnally not too fussed about it either way. Since I believe the license is a contract and that that should be clarified, I am rather in favor of the inclusion of the term. If it's not there, too bad, it won't change the nature of the act ;-) > > Best regards, > > Hannelore > > > From alexandre.dulaunoy at ael.be Mon Nov 22 16:35:19 2004 From: alexandre.dulaunoy at ael.be (Alexandre Dulaunoy) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:35:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Cc-be] Q1 Contract vs Licence In-Reply-To: <41A24ACD.7010309@fundp.ac.be> References: <41A10B0B.6060304@law.kuleuven.ac.be> <41A1CFB8.7020208@fundp.ac.be> <41A1E266.6050703@law.kuleuven.ac.be> <41A24ACD.7010309@fundp.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Yorick Cool wrote: > > My mistake, I meant Eben Moglen. Sorry about that. > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 > > > > I guess we agree that it is to a large extent an academic discussion in > > Belgian law. > Absolutely, even though I do side with Rosen more than Moglen even in > american law. Moglen's agenda blurrs his analysis in my view. To each > his own :-) We can also say that Rosen's agenda blurs his own analysis ;-) but he also takes the direction in the "Open Software License" to follow the two paths being enforceable under contract law but also copyright law. But the usage or not of the "contract" term is not an issue in my eyes. -- ** Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) **** http://www.foo.be/ **** 0x44E6CBCD **/ "To disable the Internet to save EMI and Disney is the moral **/ equivalent of burning down the library of Alexandria to ensure the **/ livelihood of monastic scribes." Jon Ippolito. From mark at markvdb.be Tue Nov 23 09:13:56 2004 From: mark at markvdb.be (mark at markvdb.be) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:13:56 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Creative Commons and poetry Message-ID: <1101219236.41a345a4629e4@webmail.markvdb.be> Hi, We've touched music, and the current impossibility for SABAM members to create Creative Commons music. One can always hope that will change. I wonder if there is more openness in literature/poetry? Are poets and writers also prohibited from CC'ing their work by a similar organisation? Or by their publishing contracts? Could the lawyers am Mark From mark at markvdb.be Tue Nov 23 09:32:51 2004 From: mark at markvdb.be (mark at markvdb.be) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:32:51 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] compatibility with rights organisations/publishing contracts Message-ID: <1101220371.41a34a1328050@webmail.markvdb.be> Hi, Sorry for my previous incomplete post... We've touched music, and the current impossibility for SABAM members to create Creative Commons music. One can always hope that will change. I wonder if there is more openness in literature/poetry? Are poets and writers also prohibited from CC'ing their work by a similar organisation? Or by their publishing contracts? Could the lawyers amongst you maybe create a list of authoring rights organisations and their compatibility with Creative Commons? What about organisations relating to photography? course materials (I seem to remember something about an organisation called vewa)? video? ...? If we have a clear overview of this, we can start pushing for CC compatible authors contracts with all of these monopolies. At the CC.nl launch, the Dutch equivalent of SABAM stressed the technical complexity of giving the author the choice of CC'ing on a per work basis. They promised a solution by april 2007. It would be nice to pry a similar promise from SABAM and the likes, too... Maybe it would also be nice to take a fairly standard existing book publishing contract and look at the inconsistencies with CC licenses? Mark From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Tue Nov 23 17:35:36 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:35:36 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41A3BB38.8000809@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Hi, just a quick reply to some of your remarks. I hope others will provide some more answers. Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > Hi All, > > > * Introduction or do I understand the CCs ? > > First of all, I want to be sure that I understood the CCs and the > coverage of CCs. The CCs coverage is primarily the non-functional > works[1] therefore functional works are normally covered by other > licenses. Functional works are software, "computer programs", > functional documentation[2] or works having an integrated part of > another functional works. Computer programs can be licenced with the CC. In practice, the GPL is one of the most popular open source licences for software. > [...] > CCs is a framework proposed to authors/creators to pick various > licenses by granting or revoking certains of their rights. It's > difficult to find exactly which licences can be considered as free[3] > as a large part is clearly non-free[4] but proposes a clarification of > old classical approach (e.g. : No Derivative and/or No Commercial is a > clarification of the old proprietary concept "Shareware"). > > [BE/Global] CCs should use a clear terminology when using > "free"/libre/vrij terms. Are the proposed licenses free or not ? an > update to the existing could be a good way. > In my opinion, Commercial of Non-Commercial, Derivatives or No-Derivatives, Share-Alike or Freeride is pretty clear. The open source initiative certifies open source licences upon request. www.opensource.org > CCs are here to simplify the work of the authors/creators to choose a > "license" without too much legal complexity and to limit the number of > works with no exclusive rights open (default rule of copyrights). > > If you feel I misunderstand something, please let me know. > * My comments on the belgian transposition : > > (Scope : Compatibilities or can I exchange work with CCs world and/or > the other communities ? DRM clause issue ? 2001/29/CE still not > transposed in Belgium but why using terminology from it ? Moral rights > and patrimonial rights in CCs ?) > > [Note: in this case, 'use' is using the original work in another new > original work] > > [BE] Are the BE adaptation of the CCs licenses are all compatible with > the other respective adaptation ? Can I use a content licensed under > the CC-SA-1.0(en) in my work licensed work with a CC-SA-2.0(be-fr) ? > In the case of CC-NC, a author in US wants to use my work licensed > under a CC-NC-SA-2.0(be-nl) but the belgian translation removed the > lending rights ? How can I proceed with this issue without contacting > the author ? and by contacting the author ? Can you show us a > practical example ? > The licence says which licences are compatible for derivatives in art. 4b) Where does it say the lending rights are removed? The scope of rights should be more or less the same. > [BE/Global] Are the BE adaption compatible the other CCs ? is there > a compatibility matrix available somewhere with all the CCs licences ? The licence indicates this for derivatives: art. 4 b > > [BE] Moral rights and use of DRM/TPMs. How can you ensure the scope of > the moral rights exercice to format only ? It wouldn't be better to > exclude fully moral rights on the various licences ? or to force the > scope on the 'patrimonial' side only ? > Could you explain this a little more? What doe moral rights have in common with DRM? > [BE/EU] Regarding the implementation of the 2001/29/CE, the "copyright > management information" of the article 7 is closely linked to the > article 6 of the 2001/29/CE. I'm really afraid that could be used to > clearly revoke the 4a stating the opposite. Why do you want to use > this terminology as the transposition is not done in Belgium ? Why not > keeping "copyright notice" ? > Copyright management information is not a technical measure. It's just a copyright claim: "Copyright owner = mr. X". [...]> > [BE] Is all the exceptions in Section 5 (Exceptions aux droits) from > "loi du 30 juin 1994" (from Art. 21 to Art. 24) in the licences > practicable ? > The licence gives you more rights than most of the exceptions of the copyright law. In this respect, these exceptions are irrelevant to this case. Kind regards, Hannelore >[...] -- Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and ICT. http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Wed Nov 24 13:27:41 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:27:41 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Question 2. Accepting the licence: using the work or exercising the rights Message-ID: The modification was made in order to be completely accurate. The user of a work does not technically exercise a right in a work, since those rights are owned by the copyright owner. It is only when she is a party to the CC License that she exercise the rights granted to her by the license. But since this article refer to an act that is deemed to be an acceptation of the license, it seemed to us more accurate to say that this acceptance follows any use of the works covered by the rights referred to in the license. > >Is the goal to limit the scope to exercising >rights to the work that are covered by copyright >law? NO. >What if a user claims to have a patent (inasfar >as that is possible) or claims some other right >to the work? >The user could continue to benefit from the >license while sueing others for patent >infringement? I don't understand your point. That does not have an effect on the article you commented about the acceptation of the license, I think > > S?verine >Hi all, > >Question 2. Accepting the licence: using the work or exercising the rights > >Original CCPL: >By exercising any rights to the work provided >here, you accept and agree to be bound by the >terms of this licence. > >BE-CCPL: >By using a work in a way covered by any rights provided here... > > >I don't really understand why this modification >was made. What is the issue you are trying to >solve? > >Is the goal to limit the scope to exercising >rights to the work that are covered by copyright >law? >What if a user claims to have a patent (inasfar >as that is possible) or claims some other right >to the work? >The user could continue to benefit from the >license while sueing others for patent >infringement? > >Hannelore >_______________________________________________ >Cc-be mailing list >Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be -- S?verine Dusollier Centre de Recherche Informatique et Droit - Responsable du D?partement Droits Intellectuels Ma?tre de Conf?rences aux Facult?s Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix de Namur Rempart de la Vierge 5 T?l: +32 81 72 47 60 5000 NAMUR Fax: +32 81 72 52 02 BELGIQUE severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be http://www.crid.be From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Wed Nov 24 13:31:51 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:31:51 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q3. a "Collective work" Message-ID: We have hesitated a lot about using the terminology "collective work". We first tried to find another term, so as to avoid a possible confusion with the French notion of collective work. Finally, because it seemed more complicated to find a term both accurate and not confusing, we decided to keep "collective work" and hope that the definition appearing in the license would clear all confusion with the French notion. We have also thought to use a phrase similar to what you proposed, that insists on the sepcific meaning of the term. We will think about it when drafting the final version. As to the database, using the term seems to me even more confusing, since that term is defined in a Belgian law and does not cover the same notion that the "collective work" refereed to in the original CC license. S?verine >Question 3. a "Collective work" > >Out of curiosity, why do you explicitely refer to the definition of a >collective work made by the French Code of Intellectual Property? > >Isn't this confusing for users? > >Also, there are other terms you might *not* want a collective work to >refer to. >For instance a database in the sense of art. 20 bis of the Copyright law >of June 30th, 1994 and art. 2 of the Database law > of August 31st, 1998. > >Could you achieve the same goal by writing: "the term Collective work >has a specific meaning in this licence, namely a work..." > > >Hannelore -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041124/e7160943/attachment.html From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Wed Nov 24 13:33:45 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:33:45 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q4. Derivative work Message-ID: Good point. We will consider it when drafting the final version. S?verine >Q4. Derivative work > >Art 1 b) A derivative work means.... >CCPL: ... any other form in which the Work may be ... adapted, except >that a work that constitutes a Collective work will not be >considered a Derivative Work... > >BE-CCPL.nl: ...of elke andere vorm waarin het Werk ... bewerkt kan >worden, met uitzondering van de Collectieve werken, die niet als >Afgeleide werken zullen beschouwd worden... >BE-CCPL.fr: ...ou toute autre forme sous laquelle l'Oeuvre peut >?tre...adapt?e, ? l'exception des Oeuvres Collectives, qui ne seront pas >consid?r?es comme des Oeuvres D?riv?es... > > From a strictly logical standpoint, the Belgian version says: >A Work that is transformed constitutes a Derivative work, except if _it_ >is a Collective work. > >What is _it_? The initial work? The transformed work? > >In the first case: you can transform a collective work into another >work, without having a derivative work as a result. This is not what >the CCPL means. >In the latter case: if upon transformation you have a collective work, >the result is not a derivative work. >This is what the CCPL means. > >This could be solved by putting the exception in a separate sentence: >BE-CCPL.nl*: Een uitzondering geldt voor Collectieve werken, die niet >als Afgeleide werken zullen beschouwd worden in de zin van deze licentie. >BE-CCPL.fr*: Par exception, les Oeuvres collectives ne seront pas >consid?r?es comme des Oeuvres d?riv?es aux termes de la pr?sente licence. > > >Hannelore -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041124/29d25145/attachment.html From wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be Wed Nov 24 14:31:52 2004 From: wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be (Wouter Vanden hove) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:31:52 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q6. Future forms of exploitation In-Reply-To: <41A10F19.20209@law.kuleuven.ac.be> References: <41A10F19.20209@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A4E1A8.7090204@pandora.be> Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > Q6. Future forms of exploitation > Art. 3 ?1 alinea 6 of the Copyright law states that contracts whereby > the author transfers his rights with regard to unknown forms of > exploitation are void. With CC the author doesn't *transfer* his copyright, therefore I don't understand why this clause would apply to CC-licenses. > The original CCPL says "The above rights may be exercised in all media > and formats whether now known or hereafter devised." > The BE-CCPL limits this to media and formats known today. I asked the same questions on the CC-NL list in July. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-nl/2004-July/000013.html : "Wat wordt bedoeld met "bestaande media en formats"? 1) de media die bestaan op het moment dat de originele ateur dit werk onder CC-licentie plaatst. 2) of het moment waarop een gebruiker de licentie leest. (dit kan 50 jaar later zijn)" > The BE-CCPL limits this to media and formats known today. When is "today"? Since the license is valid for the whole duration of the copyright term, life +70, I would interpret "today" as *any day* within that duration. > New formats don't imply new forms of exploitation either. Exactly. Wouter Vanden Hove vrijschrift.org gutenberg.nl From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Wed Nov 24 13:40:18 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:40:18 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q6. Future forms of exploitation Message-ID: I see your point. It is true that "media" and format do not mean forms of exploitation. I like the alternative you proposed, we will use it in the final version. As to the moment when the author licensed the work, the Belgina law states that the forms of exploitation have to be unknown when the contract authorising the use of the work has been concluded. As to CC license, it is the time where the user has accepted the license, therefore when he has first used the work (see your comment about that article in Q1). So the user should know whether a form of explitation was unknown at the time. Am I right ? S?verine >Q6. Future forms of exploitation > >Art. 3 ?1 alinea 6 of the Copyright law states that contracts whereby >the author transfers his rights with regard to unknown forms of >exploitation are void. > >This rule is why art. 3 last paragraph of the CCPL is modified, I suppose. > >The original CCPL says "The above rights may be exercised in all media >and formats whether now known or hereafter devised." >The BE-CCPL limits this to media and formats known today. > >Was this modification absolutely necessary? > >It depends partly on the interpretation of the term media. >The term 'media' might mean the physical support on which the work is >stored. In the future, new physical supports will be invented. But >using such a new physical support, doesn't have to imply that this is a >new form of exploitation. What does it matter if a file is stored on a >disk, a CD-ROM or a DVD? > >New formats don't imply new forms of exploitation either. > >The term 'media' can also mean channel to distribute information, like >radio, television and internet. If a new channel is invented, then >there will probably be new forms of exploitation. > >A possible alternative might be: >"The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now >known or hereafter devised, with the exception of >forms of exploitation unknown at the time this licence was given." > >However, it is unclear how a licensee will find out when the original >Author licenced the work. > >This is a tough one. > >Hannelore > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041124/63a137fd/attachment.html From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Wed Nov 24 17:45:21 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:45:21 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Question 2. Accepting the licence: using the work or exercising the rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41A50F01.8040100@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Dear S?verine, Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. Severine Dusollier wrote: > The modification was made in order to be completely accurate. The user > of a work does not technically exercise a right in a work, since those > rights are owned by the copyright owner. It is only when she is a party > to the CC License that she exercise the rights granted to her by the > license. But since this article refer to an act that is deemed to be an > acceptation of the license, it seemed to us more accurate to say that > this acceptance follows any use of the works covered by the rights > referred to in the license. > That makes sense. I interpreted this differently when I first read it. "By exercising any rights to the work" I understood as by acting as if you owned the rights to the work: - exercising rights that normally fall under the monopoly of the author by copyright - exercising rights as a patent holder: not for making the work, but because it violates your patent. The wording 'any rights' made me wonder what that could possibly mean, beyond copyright. The wording 'using in a way covered by this licence' doesn't refer to rights beyond copyright. In both cases, use of the work in some way leads to accepting the licence. But I do wonder if the scope is exactly the same. Is sueing for patent infringement 'exercising any right' to the work? I really don't know. Kind regards, Hannelore >> >> Is the goal to limit the scope to exercising rights to the work that >> are covered by copyright law? > > > NO. > >> What if a user claims to have a patent (inasfar as that is possible) >> or claims some other right to the work? >> The user could continue to benefit from the license while sueing >> others for patent infringement? > > > I don't understand your point. That does not have an effect on the > article you commented about the acceptation of the license, I think > >> >> > > > S?verine > > >> Hi all, >> >> Question 2. Accepting the licence: using the work or exercising the >> rights >> >> Original CCPL: >> By exercising any rights to the work provided here, you accept and >> agree to be bound by the terms of this licence. >> >> BE-CCPL: >> By using a work in a way covered by any rights provided here... >> >> >> I don't really understand why this modification was made. What is the >> issue you are trying to solve? >> >> Is the goal to limit the scope to exercising rights to the work that >> are covered by copyright law? >> What if a user claims to have a patent (inasfar as that is possible) >> or claims some other right to the work? >> The user could continue to benefit from the license while sueing >> others for patent infringement? >> >> Hannelore >> _______________________________________________ >> Cc-be mailing list >> Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > > -- Hannelore Dekeyser Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Wed Nov 24 18:03:41 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:03:41 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Language remarks Message-ID: <41A5134D.1000608@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Dear all, I have some remarks concerning the language of the texts. Mostly, these are a question of style and taste, and do not indicate mistakes in the translation. Still, these might be of some use. When reading through the text, I have kept in mind that the CCPL is intended primarily for non-lawyers. The sentences should have as simple a grammatical structure as possible. Not like many legal texts we know. :-) I know from experience that it is difficult to translate legal texts from one language to another. On top of this, translating from French to Dutch or vice versa has its own pitfalls. So I hope the adaptation team takes these suggestions as they are intended, my way to contribute to the adaptation of the licence in any way I can and not as critiscism of the work done. Text from the CCPL is preceded by BE-CCPL.nl or BE-CCPL.fr My suggestions are preceded by BE-CCPL.nl* or BE-CCPL.fr* ---- Preamble BE-CCPL.nl:De verspreiding van deze versie van deze licentie _veroorzaakt_ geen juridische of contractuele relatie tussen de partijen bij deze licentie en creative commons. I feel there is a different nuance here. BE-CCPL.nl*:De verspreiding van deze versie van deze licentie _doet_ geen juridische of contractuele relatie _ontstaan_ tussen de partijen bij deze licentie en creative commons. ---- Licence: Original CCPL: ...The work (as defined below) is provided under the terms of _this_ creative commons public license... BE CCPL: BE CCPL.eng: The work (as defined below) is provided under the terms of _the_ creative commons public licence... BE CCPL.fr: _la_ Creative Commons public licence BE CCPL.nl: _de_ Creative Commons public licence Strictly speaking, "the" creative commons public licence does not exist. ---- Art. 1 Definitions a) Collective work CCPL: ...a periodical issue... BE-CCPL.fr: ... publications p?riodiques ... BE-CCPL.nl: ... geregeld verschijnende publicaties ... In my opinion the Dutch translation has drifted away from the original text. A periodical is a 'tijdschrift' in Dutch. A periodical issue, is a 'aflevering van een tijdschrift'. In french 'une ?dition d'un p?riodique'? b) Derivative work CCPL: ... a work based upon the Work ... BE-CCPL.fr: ...une oeuvre cr??e ? partir de l'Oeuvre... BE-CCPL.nl: ...dat onstaan is uit het Werk... Although the Dutch translation is certainly correct, the verb "gebaseerd is op" seems more appropriate in this sentence. The verb 'ontstaan uit' has a nuance of passiveness and accidental creation of derivatives. In my mind the verb 'gebaseerd op' implies dat someone created the derivative intentionally. I confess this is somewhat a question of taste. c) Licensor BE-CCPL.eng: the individual or entity that offers rights _on_ the work... Shouldn't this read: ... rights _to_ the work ...? e) Work BE-CCPL.fr: ... Oeuvre de l'esprit... BE-CCPL.nl: ... Werk des geestes ... Maybe this Dutch term is accepted jargon, but it sounds rather akward to me (as legalese often does). Would 'intellectuele schepping' be an acceptable alternative? BE-CCPL.fr: ..."l'Oeuvre" inclut egalement les objets prot?g?s par un droit voisin ... BE-CCPL.nl: ... omvat het "Werk" ook _voorwerpen_ die beschermd worden door een naburig recht... The word 'voorwerp' is typically used for tangible objects. The usual term in copyright law is 'werk' BE-CCPL.nl*: ... omvat het "Werk" ook _werken_ die beschermd worden door een naburig recht... This does not make beautifull prose, but in a licence that doesn't really matter. furhter on in the same sentence: BE-CCPL.nl: ... voor zover deze _objecten_ het voorwerp vormen van deze Licentie ... 'Objecten' in dutch also implies tangibles ini my mind. Again I would suggest 'werken'. BE-CCPL.nl*: ... voor zover deze _werken_ het voorwerp vormen van deze Licentie ... And again in the last sentence: BE-CCPL.nl: ...zodat ze op dergelijke _voorwerpen_ ... BE-CCPL.nl*: ...zodat ze op dergelijke _werken_ ... Typo in the French version: BE-CCPL.fr: ... Si n?cessaire, les disposition de la ... f) BE-CCPL.nl:Met "U" wordt de natuurlijke persoon of rechtspersoon bedoeld die het Werk gebruikt op een wijze [1]_ die geregeld wordt door de rechten waarop deze licentie betrekking heeft_ [2] _en die de bepalingen van deze licentie met betrekking tot het werk niet eerder geschonden heeft_, [3] of die de uitdrukkelijke toestemming van de licentiegever _gekregen heeft om rechten krachtens deze licentie uit te oefenen ondanks een eerdere schending van deze_. This is a very heavy grammatical construction. I would suggest something lighter: BE-CCPL.nl*:Met "U" wordt de natuurlijke persoon of rechtspersoon bedoeld die het Werk gebruikt op een wijze [1] _ afgedekt door de rechten omschreven in deze licentie_ [2] _en zonder voorafgaandelijk de licentievoorwaarden te schenden_, [3] of die uitdrukkelijke toestemming van de licentiegever _kreeg om de rechten uit deze licentie uit te oefenen ondanks een eerdere schending ervan_. Note my question 5 where I ask about the variation from the original CCPL found here. -- Art. 2 BE-CCPL.nl: Niets in deze Licentie heeft de bedoeling de toepassing van _de bepalingen betreffende_ de uitzonderingen ... This is a heavy grammatical construction. BE-CCPL.nl*:"Niets in deze Licentie heeft de bedoeling de toepassing van _ _ de uitzonderingen" BE-CCPL.nl:... of elk ander _van toepassing zijnde_ recht ... or BE-CCPL.nl*:...of elk ander _toepasselijk_ recht... -- Art. 3 First paragraph: BE-CCPL.nl: ... het sui generis recht van de databanken ... Het recht is niet van maar op de databank. BE-CCPL.nl*:... het sui generis databankenrecht ... Art. 3 a) BE-CCPL.nl: use ';' in stead of ',' conform to the French version. BE-CCPL.nl: ...en het reproduceren van het Werk zoals het opgenomen is in de genoemde Collectieve Werken;... This is a rather literal translation from the French version and might be reformulated. BE-CCPL.nl*:... en het reproduceren van het Werk als onderdeel van dergelijke Collectieve werken; ... c) Footnote 12: By 'location' do you mean rental? Art. 3 last paragraph. CCPL: ... The above rights include the right to make modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats _._ All rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved, ... BE-CCPL.fr: ...Vous avez ?galement le droit d'apporter les modifications de l'Oeuvre techniquement n?cessaires ? l'exercice de ces droits dur d'autres supports, m?dias, et formats _,_ sous r?serve de tous les droits qui ne sont pas express?ment conc?d?s par le Donneur de Licence.... Changing the '.' into a ',' changes the meaning of the text. The exception now applies to the right to modify if technically necessary. The original licence makes a more general reservation. BE-CCPL.fr*: ...Vous avez ?galement le droit d'apporter les modifications de l'Oeuvre techniquement n?cessaires ? l'exercice de ces droits dur d'autres supports, m?dias, et formats . _Tous les droits qui ne sont pas express?ment conc?d?s par le Donneur de Licence ... BE-CCPL.nl*: ...andere dragers, media en formaten. _De Licentiegever behoudt zich alle rechten voor die niet uitdrukkelijk overgedragen zijn in deze licentie, met inbegrip van, doch niet beperkt tot, de rechten vermeld in sectie 4(e)._ Typo: BE-CCPL.eng: ...technically-need modifications .. This should be "technically-needed". -- Art. 4 a) 1e alinea BE-CCPL.nl:...de Uniform Resource Identifier _die betrekking heeft op_ deze licentie ... De bijzin constructie lijkt mij overbodig. BE-CCPL.nl*: ...de Uniform Resource Identifier _van_ deze licentie... 2e alinea BE-CCPL.nl: ... U mag geen voorwaarden _met betrekking tot_ het gebruik van het werk aanbieden of opleggen ... "Met betrekking tot" is correct, maar is een zware constructie naar mijn gevoel. BE-CCPL.nl*:... U mag geen voorwaarden _op_ het gebruik van het werk aanbieden of opleggen... b) 1e alinea typo: BE-CCPL.nl: ... LicentieKenmerken ... BE-CCPL.nl: ... of elke andere licentie die in de voorafgaande zin gespecifieerd werd, ... Voorafgaande? of gewoon 'vorige'? Een bijzin constructie is niet nodig. BE-CCPL.nl*: ... of elke andere licentie gespecifieerd in de vorige zin, ... BE-CCPL.nl:...de Uniform Resource Identifier _die betrekking heeft op_ deze licentie ... De bijzin constructie lijkt mij overbodig. BE-CCPL.nl*: ...de Uniform Resource Identifier _van_ deze licentie... 2e alinea BE-CCPL.nl: ... U mag geen voorwaarden _met betrekking tot_ het gebruik van het afgeleid werk aanbieden of opleggen ... "Met betrekking tot" is correct, maar is een zware constructie naar mijn gevoel. BE-CCPL.nl*:... U mag geen voorwaarden _op_ het gebruik van het afgeleid werk aanbieden of opleggen... Last alinea BE-CCPL.nl*:... Het voorgaande geldt voor het afgeleid werk dat opgenomen is in een collectief werk maar dat houdt niet in dat het collectief werk zelf, afgezien van het _werk_, onderworpen wordt aan de bepalingen van deze licentie. Moet dit niet het _afgeleid werk_ zijn hier? d) Typo BE-CCPL.fr: ...Uniform Resource idendifier que le Donneur de la licence sp?cifie comme ?tant associ? ? l'oeuvre ... BE-CCPL.nl: ... tenzij _een dergelijke_ URI niet verwijst ... een URI van die soort? of gewoon 'die' BE-CCPL.nl*: ... tenzij _die_ URI niet verwijst ... -- Art. 5 BE-CCPL.nl: ...Indien de op deze licentie van toepassing zijnde wetgeving ... Zware constructie. BE-CCPL.nl*: ... Indien wetgeving van toepassing op deze licentie ... BE-CCPL.nl: ..._uitsluiting_ van _verantwoordelijkheid_ verbiedt of reglementeert, dan is deze _ontheffing_ van _aansprakelijkheid_ en garantie slechts... Net als in de franse tekst zou ik hier twee keer het begrip 'aansprakelijkheid' gebruiken. Het woord ontheffing zou ik vervangen door uitsluiting. Het lijkt mij belangrijker om het jargon consistent te gebruiken, dan om een mooie afwisselende tekst af te leveren. BE-CCPL.nl*: ..._uitsluiting_ van _verantwoordelijkheid_ verbiedt of reglementeert, dan is deze _uitsluiting_ van _aansprakelijkheid_ en garantie slechts... -- Art. 6 BE-CCPL.nl: Voor zover de _van toepassing zijnde_ wetgeving ... Zware constructie. BE-CCPL.nl*: Voor zover de toepasselijke wetgeving ... BE-CCPL.fr: ... resultant de _l'execution de_ la pr?sente licence ... BE-CCPL.nl: ...voortvloeit uit deze licentie ... The Dutch version is closer to the original CCPL, but in my opinion the French text is clearer. BE-CCPL.nl*: ...voorvloeit uit de uitvoering van deze licentie ... -- Art. 7 a) BE-CCPL.nl: Elke niet nakoming van de bepalingen van deze licentie ... This is a question of taste: BE-CCPL.nl*: Elke inbreuk op de bepalingen ... BE-CCPL.nl: ..., _brengt_ de ontbinding van rechtswege van deze Licentie en het einde van de rechten die eruit voortvloeien _met zich mee_. Overspannen tang-constructie? BE-CCPL.nl*: ..., _leidt tot_ de ontbinding van rechtswege van deze Licentie en het einde van de rechten die eruit voortvloeien BE-CCPL.nl: ... Niettemin behouden de licenties op afgleide werken of collectieve werken, die door U krachtens deze licentie verleende werden aan natuurlijke personen of rechtspersonen, hun werking ten opzichte van deze natuurlijke personen of rechtspersonen, voor zover deze personen de bepalingen van deze licenties niet schenden. ... This is a very complicated sentence. I would suggest this as a possible alternative: BE-CCPL.nl*: ...Niettemin blijven de licenties op Afgeleide werken of Collectieve werken die u verleend heeft aan natuurlijke of morele personen bestaan, voor zover deze personen de licentie naleven. ... or BE-CCPL.nl*: ...Niettemin worden de licenties op Afgeleide werken of Collectieve werken die u verleend heeft aan natuurlijke of morele personen niet be?indigd, voor zover deze personen de licentie naleven. ... BE-CCPL.nl: ... zonder dat het gebruik maken van deze mogelijkheid deze licentie (of elke andere licentie die, krachtens de bepalingen van deze licentie, verleend werd of verleend moest worden) ongedaan kan maken, en deze licentie zal onverminderd van kracht blijven tenzij de be?indiging intreedt wegens de hoger aangegeven redenen. This subsentence is very long and should be separated from the first part by a semicolon. This will improve legibility in my opinion. The same probably holds for the french version. The subsentence between brackets creates a big distance between the subject and the verb, this could be solved by bringing the verb up front. I suggest using 'zodat' to express the relationship between the first and the last part of the sentence. BE-CCPL.nl*; het gebruik maken van deze optie leidt niet tot het intrekken van deze licentie (of elke andere licentie die, krachtens de bepalingen van deze licentie, verleend werd of verleend moest worden) zodat de licentie onverminderd van kracht blijft, behoudens be?indiging zoals hierboven aangegeven. I haven't read article 8 in detail yet, but as time is running short to discuss the licence, I'm posting what I have already. Kind regards, Hannelore -- Hannelore Dekeyser Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Wed Nov 24 18:17:16 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:17:16 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Q6. Future forms of exploitation In-Reply-To: <41A4E1A8.7090204@pandora.be> References: <41A10F19.20209@law.kuleuven.ac.be> <41A4E1A8.7090204@pandora.be> Message-ID: <41A5167C.8000306@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Wouter Vanden hove wrote: > Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > >> Q6. Future forms of exploitation > > >> Art. 3 ?1 alinea 6 of the Copyright law states that contracts whereby >> the author transfers his rights with regard to unknown forms of >> exploitation are void. > > > With CC the author doesn't *transfer* his copyright, therefore I don't > understand why this clause would apply to CC-licenses. > I think transfer also means giving a non-exclusive licence, which the CC is. > >> The original CCPL says "The above rights may be exercised in all media >> and formats whether now known or hereafter devised." > > >> The BE-CCPL limits this to media and formats known today. > > > I asked the same questions on the CC-NL list in July. > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-nl/2004-July/000013.html : > > "Wat wordt bedoeld met "bestaande media en formats"? > 1) de media die bestaan op het moment dat de originele ateur dit werk > onder CC-licentie plaatst. > 2) of het moment waarop een gebruiker de licentie leest. (dit kan 50 > jaar later zijn)" > As far as I can tell they didn't answer. The answer depends on the 'law of the land'. I don't know the answer, see my other post in this thread. > >> The BE-CCPL limits this to media and formats known today. > > When is "today"? > > Since the license is valid for the whole duration of the copyright term, > life +70, I would interpret "today" as *any day* within that duration. > If it is time of offering (first publishing) then no. If it is time of accepting by the user, then it can be a different time for each user. But for every user one time counts: first use. See the other post in this thread. > > > New formats don't imply new forms of exploitation either. > Exactly. > Hannelore > > > Wouter Vanden Hove > vrijschrift.org > gutenberg.nl > > > _______________________________________________ > Cc-be mailing list > Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > -- Hannelore Dekeyser Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Wed Nov 24 18:20:10 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:20:10 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] compatibility with rights organisations/publishing contracts In-Reply-To: <1101220371.41a34a1328050@webmail.markvdb.be> References: <1101220371.41a34a1328050@webmail.markvdb.be> Message-ID: <41A5172A.8020400@law.kuleuven.ac.be> mark at markvdb.be wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for my previous incomplete post... > > We've touched music, and the current impossibility for SABAM members to create > Creative Commons music. One can always hope that will change. > I don't think it is *impossible*. But you can't do both: licence with CC and authorise SABAM to manage licencing issues on all your works. SABAM uses a restrictive licence. I think this was discussed in an earlier thread. >[...] At the CC.nl launch, the Dutch equivalent of SABAM stressed the technical > complexity of giving the author the choice of CC'ing on a per work basis. They > promised a solution by april 2007. It would be nice to pry a similar promise > from SABAM and the likes, too... > That's why this is complicated. > Maybe it would also be nice to take a fairly standard existing book publishing > contract and look at the inconsistencies with CC licenses? > > Mark > > > _______________________________________________ > Cc-be mailing list > Cc-be at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-be > -- Hannelore Dekeyser Researcher Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Faculty of Law - K.U.Leuven Tiensestraat 41 3000 Leuven Tel: +32 16 32.54.70 Fax: +32 16 32.54.38 E-mail: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be Thu Nov 25 11:58:16 2004 From: severine.dusollier at fundp.ac.be (Severine Dusollier) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:58:16 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] invitation Creative Commons Belgium Message-ID: Conf?rence Gratuite Creative Commons - Une licence d'utilisation entre droit d'auteur et domaine public Creative Commons Belgium launch event Vendredi 10 d?cembre 2004 ? 14h Biblioth?que Royale de Belgique - Bruxelles Vous ?tes cordialement invit? ? la pr?sentation et au lancement des licences belges Creative Commons, qui aura lieu le 10 d?cembre 2004, de 14h ? 20h, ? l'auditorium Lippens de la Biblioth?que Royale de Belgique, Boulevard de l'imp?ratrice, 4 ? 1000 Bruxelles. Creative Commons est un projet cr?? par Lawrence Lessig, professeur ? l'Universit? de Stanford, afin de stimuler la diffusion et la r?utilisation cr?ative d'?uvres prot?g?es par le droit d'auteur suivant un mod?le de copyleft, qu'il s'agisse de films, d'images, de musique, d'?crits ou d'?uvres scientifiques ou ?ducatives. Creative Commons propose un syst?me de licences, ? mi-chemin entre le droit d'auteur et le domaine public, qui autorisent une utilisation et une distribution libre des ?uvres, tout en prot?geant les droits de leurs auteurs. Ce syst?me a d?j? ?t? adopt? par plus d'1,5 millions d'?uvres dans le monde depuis 2002, date de la cr?ation du projet. Afin de favoriser l'utilisation des licences au-del? des Etats-Unis, Creative Commons s'est lanc? dans un vaste projet de traduction des licences dans les droits nationaux. C'est d?sormais chose faite en Belgique, gr?ce au travail du CRID (Centre de Recherches Informatique et Droit des Facult?s Universitaires de Namur) et du CIR (Centrum voor Intellectuele Rechten de la KULeuven). Le lancement officiel de ces licences Made in Belgium permettra de comprendre la logique de celles-ci, de discuter de projets belges qui ont d?j? fait le pas Creative Commons et de d?battre des questions que ce mod?le libre engendre. Date : 10 d?cembre 2004, 14 h. Lieu : Biblioth?que Royale de Belgique - auditorium Lippens Boulevard de l'Empereur, 4 - 1000 Bruxelles Entr?e libre Traduction simultan?e FR / NL Programme: 14h - Accueil: Dirk de Wit - Digitaal Platform van IAK en IBK 14h15 - Keynote Speech - Copyleft et Creative Commons : une alternative au droit d'auteur - par S?verine Dusollier (FUNDP / CRID) 14h45 - Pr?sentation de Creative Commons - par Ronald Honekamp (Creative Commons) 15h15 - Les licences belges Creative Commons - par Melanie Carly (KULeuven / CIR) & Philippe Laurent (FUNDP / CRID) 15h45 - Pr?sentation de projets belges sous Creative Commons Pierre de Jaeger(Radioswap), Stefan K?lgen / C.H.I.P.S. vzw (STADSchromosomen - beeld van een stad), Guillemette Lauters (FUNDP), Sandra Fauconnier (V2_ Rotterdam), Marc Vanden Borre (muzikant/componist) 16h15 - Pause Caf? 16h45 - D?bat pr?sid? par Suzanne Capiau (Avocate / ULB) avec Alain Strowel (Avocat / FUSL - ULG), Martine Verstringe (SABAM), Tanguy Roosen (SACD), Julien van Borm (Biblioth?caire en chef de l'Univ. d'Anvers), Lo?c Bodson (auteur compositeur), Han Soete (Indymedia). 18h Cl?ture et cocktail 20h - Concert - Lo-BAT, Creative Commons Music Public : Artistes, biblioth?caires, archivistes, enseignants, sp?cialistes du droit d'auteur ou informaticiens, juristes, curieux? Organisateurs : CRID (FUNDP), CIR (KULeuven), Constant asbl et Digitaal Platform van de steunpunten IAK en IBK. Avec le soutien de la Biblioth?que Royale de Belgique. Et la collaboration de VTi, MCV, VCOB, VVBAD, VCV, NICC Cette journ?e s'ins?re dans le festival ? Jonctions ?, organis? par Constant asbl, qui se d?roule du 3 au 19 d?cembre 2004, et est consacr? aux licences libres et de copyleft. (programme sur http://www.constantvzw.com/vj8/) L'?v?nement sera retransmis en streaming sur le web, gr?ce ? l'intervention de radios associatives, telles que RUN, Radio Campus et Radio Centraal, ainsi que radioswap.net (http://www.constant.irisnet.be:8000). Liens utiles : http://creativecommons.org http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/be http://www.crid.be/creativecommons http://www.constantvzw.com/vj8/ http://www.digitaalplatform.be Inscription aupr?s de : IAK / IBK 09 / 267 90 40 of info at iak.be of info at ibknet.be Mr / Mme: Nom:????????????????.. Pr?nom: ??????????????. Organisation: ?????????????? Adresse: ????????????????. T?l: ?????????????????.. Email: ????????????????.. Assistera ? la pr?sentation de licences belges Creative Commons le vendredi 10 d?cembre 2004. A renvoyer ? : info at iak.be fax: 09 / 233 07 09 tel: 09 / 235 22 60 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-be/attachments/20041125/5012622d/attachment.html From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Fri Nov 26 04:20:50 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:20:50 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Cc-be] Language remarks] Message-ID: <41A6F572.8000204@law.kuleuven.ac.be> I agree with Stefaan here. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Cc-be] Language remarks Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:19:01 +0100 From: Stefaan Huysentruyt To: Hannelore Dekeyser References: <41A5134D.1000608 at law.kuleuven.ac.be> Misschien meer vertrouwd: On 25-nov-04, at 00:03, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > In my opinion the Dutch translation has drifted away from the original > text. > A periodical is a 'tijdschrift' in Dutch. A periodical issue, is a > 'aflevering van een tijdschrift'. > In french 'une ?dition d'un p?riodique'? A periodical issue, is 'een uitgave van een tijdschrift'. Stefaan. -- Hannelore Dekeyser Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Fri Nov 26 05:34:28 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:34:28 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Art. 8: language and content remarks. Message-ID: <41A706B4.5000101@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Hi all, I have read through the last part of the licence, and I have a few remarks. As the time left to discuss is short, I have put both language and content remarks in this post. Art. 8 a) and b) CCPL: Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers _to the recipient_ a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License. BE-CCPL.fr: Lorsque vous pr?tez, distribuez l'oeuvre ou une oeuvre collective, la communiquez ou la mettez ? disposititon du public, le donneur de licence offre au _destinataire de cette distribution ou communication_ une licence... BE-CCPL.nl: Telkens u het werk of een collectief werk uitleent, verspreidt, meedeelt of ter beschikking stelf aan het publiek, verleent de licentiegever aan de _ontvanger van deze verspreiding of mededeling een licentie_ ... BE-CCPL.eng: Each time you lend, distribute, communicate to the public or make available to the public the work or a collective work, the licensor offers to the _recipient_ a license to the werk The english translation (BE-CCPL.eng) does not reflect that it is the recipient of the distribution or communication in the French and Dutch text. Is it necessary to add that it is the recipient of the distribution or communication and not just the recipient. This gives the impression that the person to whom you lend the work does not receive a licence. IP law specialists may know this is wrong, but the general public may be confused. Personally, I think 'destinataire de l'Oeuvre en question' and 'bestemmeling van werk in kwestie' could be used. The word 'ontvanger' sound a bit akward in this context. 'Bestemmeling' or 'begunstigde' are other options. BE-CCPL.fr*: Lorsque vous pr?tez, distribuez l'oeuvre ou une oeuvre collective, la communiquez ou la mettez ? disposititon du public, le donneur de licence offre au _destinataire de l'oeuvre en question_ une licence... BE-CCPL.nl: Telkens u het werk of een collectief werk uitleent, verspreidt, meedeelt of ter beschikking stelf aan het publiek, verleent de licentiegever aan de _bestemmeling van het werk in kwestie_ ... BE-CCPL.eng: Each time you lend, distribute, communicate to the public or make available to the public the work or a collective work, the licensor offers to the _recipient of the work in question_ a license to the werk The same holds for art. 8 b) c) Typo: BE-CCPL.nl: krachten The english translation does not reflect the Dutch and French texts exactly in my opinion. There is no 'reform' but 'interpretation' and the notion minimal does not appear. BE-CCPL.eng*: In this case, without requiring any action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be interpreted in a way that safeguards it's validity and applicability. Reform of the agreement is not possible in Belgian law, inasfar as it is a contract. This is usually the case, as was discussed in an earlier thread. Is it necessary to add that such diverting interpretation must be kept to a minimum? BE-CCPL.nl*: In dit geval zal, ..., een dergelijke bepaling op een zodanige wijze ge?nterpreteerd worden dat haar geldigheid en afdwingbaarheid gevrijwaard blijven, _voor zover dit strikt noodzakelijk is_. d) Typo: BE-CCPL.nl: schriftelijke overeenkomst dat overeenkomst die? Of: overeenkomst ondertekend door de partij ... e) This is a four-corners-clause. This license document contains all the obligations of the party. I don't know of any standard translation for this in either Dutch or French. I do have some concerns about the current translation. In art. 8 d, it says that waiver of provisions or consent to breech is only possible upon written and signed agreement between the parties. In art. 8 e, it says that this Licence is the ONLY contract between the parties with regard to this work. This seems contradictory to me. The original wording appears to allow such other contracts, while the translated version appears not to. BE-CCPL.nl*: Deze Licentie bevat de volledige overeenkomst tussen de partijen met betrekking tot het werk in kwestie, met uitsluiting van elke ander document of overeenkomst van welke aard ook dat niet hier gespecifieerd is BE-CCPL.fr*: Cette licence contient l'accord compl?te entre les parties relative ? l'oeuvre en question, ? l'exclusion de toute autre document ou accord, quelle qu'en soit la forme, qui n'est pas specifi?e ici. This way, the agreements specified in art. 8 d) are taken into account, others are not. Furhter on: CCPL: Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication _from_ You. This is one-way traffic. The Dutch and French translations refer to two-way traffic, this is not reflected in the English translation. Be-CCPL.nl*: ... geen enkele bijkomende verplichting die voorvloeit uit enige communicatie _afkomstig van_ U. BE-CCPL.fr*: ... aucune autre obligation qui appara?trait dans toute correspondance ou ?change _?mis par Vous_. Grammar mistake: BE-CCPL.eng*: ... There is no agreement or document of any kind ... -- All done :-) Hannelore -- Hannelore Dekeyser Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From virginie.jortay at easynet.be Fri Nov 26 07:54:50 2004 From: virginie.jortay at easynet.be (virginie.jortay at easynet.be) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:54:50 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] (no subject) Message-ID: <5C2A7FAA-3FAA-11D9-BC91-000A95DAC3A0@easynet.be> bonjour, je voudrais me d?sinscrire de cette liste, je ne trouve pas comment le faire via les acc?s mailman ? ma disposition. J'appelle le/a mod?rateur/trice Merci et bonne continueation Virginie Jortay 52 place Morichar 1060 Bruxelles +322 537 17 20 +32 478 320 856 http://www.groupe-kuru.org From alexandre.dulaunoy at ael.be Sat Nov 27 11:56:20 2004 From: alexandre.dulaunoy at ael.be (Alexandre Dulaunoy) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:56:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Cc-be] Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions. In-Reply-To: <41A3BB38.8000809@law.kuleuven.ac.be> References: <41A3BB38.8000809@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > Hi, > > just a quick reply to some of your remarks. I hope others will provide > some more answers. Some and some more questions ;-) > > Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > > > * Introduction or do I understand the CCs ? > > > > First of all, I want to be sure that I understood the CCs and the > > coverage of CCs. The CCs coverage is primarily the non-functional > > works[1] therefore functional works are normally covered by other > > licenses. Functional works are software, "computer programs", > > functional documentation[2] or works having an integrated part of > > another functional works. > > Computer programs can be licenced with the CC. In practice, the GPL is > one of the most popular open source licences for software. As an author, you can use the license/contract/... that you want. But if you are an author doing free software, you will use a free software license respecting the four freedoms of free software. http://www.be.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses (For the list of qualified free software licenses) And Creative Commons is clear about that : http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3646 "Can I use a Creative Commons license for software? In theory, yes, but it is not in your best interest. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available today. (The Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative stand out as resources for such licenses.) Unlike our licenses -- which do not make mention of source or object code -- these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software." CCs are not well suited for free software or functional works. > > > [...] > > CCs is a framework proposed to authors/creators to pick various > > licenses by granting or revoking certains of their rights. It's > > difficult to find exactly which licences can be considered as free[3] > > as a large part is clearly non-free[4] but proposes a clarification of > > old classical approach (e.g. : No Derivative and/or No Commercial is a > > clarification of the old proprietary concept "Shareware"). > > > > [BE/Global] CCs should use a clear terminology when using > > "free"/libre/vrij terms. Are the proposed licenses free or not ? an > > update to the existing could be a good way. > > > > In my opinion, Commercial of Non-Commercial, Derivatives or > No-Derivatives, Share-Alike or Freeride is pretty clear. I don't think so. e.g. : Non-Commercial/Non-Derivative is clearly the old concept of proprietary shareware with a new terminology. But a lot of people are using NC without seeing the clear implication. Non-Commercial distribution is a fuzzy concept. > > CCs are here to simplify the work of the authors/creators to choose a > > "license" without too much legal complexity and to limit the number of > > works with no exclusive rights open (default rule of copyrights). > > > > If you feel I misunderstand something, please let me know. > > > * My comments on the belgian transposition : > > > > (Scope : Compatibilities or can I exchange work with CCs world and/or > > the other communities ? DRM clause issue ? 2001/29/CE still not > > transposed in Belgium but why using terminology from it ? Moral rights > > and patrimonial rights in CCs ?) > > > > [Note: in this case, 'use' is using the original work in another new > > original work] > > > > [BE] Are the BE adaptation of the CCs licenses are all compatible with > > the other respective adaptation ? Can I use a content licensed under > > the CC-SA-1.0(en) in my work licensed work with a CC-SA-2.0(be-fr) ? > > In the case of CC-NC, a author in US wants to use my work licensed > > under a CC-NC-SA-2.0(be-nl) but the belgian translation removed the > > lending rights ? How can I proceed with this issue without contacting > > the author ? and by contacting the author ? Can you show us a > > practical example ? > > > The licence says which licences are compatible for derivatives in > art. 4b) I haven't see that. Can you make a copy of the respective part ? thanks. > > Where does it say the lending rights are removed? The scope of rights > should be more or less the same. > > > [BE/Global] Are the BE adaption compatible the other CCs ? is there > > a compatibility matrix available somewhere with all the CCs licences ? > > The licence indicates this for derivatives: art. 4 b > > > > > [BE] Moral rights and use of DRM/TPMs. How can you ensure the scope of > > the moral rights exercice to format only ? It wouldn't be better to > > exclude fully moral rights on the various licences ? or to force the > > scope on the 'patrimonial' side only ? > > > Could you explain this a little more? What doe moral rights have in > common with DRM? The question was more why adding in the translation reference to moral rights ? it wouldn't be better to remove the reference to moral rights in the translation ? [The relation to DRM was mainly about possible tricks done by some author that would add kind of DRM and ask to not be removed following the question of moral rights.] > > > [BE/EU] Regarding the implementation of the 2001/29/CE, the "copyright > > management information" of the article 7 is closely linked to the > > article 6 of the 2001/29/CE. I'm really afraid that could be used to > > clearly revoke the 4a stating the opposite. Why do you want to use > > this terminology as the transposition is not done in Belgium ? Why not > > keeping "copyright notice" ? > > > > Copyright management information is not a technical measure. It's just a > copyright claim: "Copyright owner = mr. X". I don't think so. There are so many examples of interaction and link between article 6 and article 7 of the directive. http://silvaneves.org/eucd/eucd-fs.en.html "toute information relative des droits se repr?sentant sous forme ?lectronique" can be clearly linked to a technical measure (article 6). I don't understand why the translation is already using the terminology of the 2001/29/CE but the transposition is not effective in Belgium (only a law proposal at the moment). I was thinking that the translation was using the current law (loi du 30 juin 1994). Is it the case ? > [...]> > > [BE] Is all the exceptions in Section 5 (Exceptions aux droits) from > > "loi du 30 juin 1994" (from Art. 21 to Art. 24) in the licences > > practicable ? > > > > The licence gives you more rights than most of the exceptions of the > copyright law. In this respect, these exceptions are irrelevant to this > case. In case of NC, is the art. 23 (loi du 30 juin 1994) compatible with the case of Non-Commercial distribution ? Public institutions can ask for money in order to lend a work. Can it be considered as "fair use" for public institution ? Thanks for any feedback, Best regards, adulau -- ** Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) **** http://www.foo.be/ **** 0x44E6CBCD **/ "To disable the Internet to save EMI and Disney is the moral **/ equivalent of burning down the library of Alexandria to ensure the **/ livelihood of monastic scribes." Jon Ippolito. From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 28 05:45:52 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:45:52 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Clarity of Licence elements? (was: Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.) In-Reply-To: References: <41A3BB38.8000809@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A9AC60.2090502@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Hi all, I'm splitting my replies in different posts, because these are very different discussions. See comments inserted. Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > > >>Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: >> >>>Hi All, >>> >>> >>[...] >> >>>CCs is a framework proposed to authors/creators to pick various >>>licenses by granting or revoking certains of their rights. It's >>>difficult to find exactly which licences can be considered as free[3] >>>as a large part is clearly non-free[4] but proposes a clarification of >>>old classical approach (e.g. : No Derivative and/or No Commercial is a >>>clarification of the old proprietary concept "Shareware"). >>> >>>[BE/Global] CCs should use a clear terminology when using >>>"free"/libre/vrij terms. Are the proposed licenses free or not ? an >>>update to the existing could be a good way. >>> >> >>In my opinion, Commercial of Non-Commercial, Derivatives or >>No-Derivatives, Share-Alike or Freeride is pretty clear. > > > I don't think so. e.g. : Non-Commercial/Non-Derivative is clearly the > old concept of proprietary shareware with a new terminology. But a lot > of people are using NC without seeing the clear > implication. Non-Commercial distribution is a fuzzy concept. > I'm not convinced the terms 'proprietory', 'shareware' or 'freeware' are any more clear. Each author can write his own licence. The labels 'shareware' and 'freeware' are applied by third parties (for instance site editors that link to the software), these are categories with fuzzy boundaries as well. The advantage of the CCPL is that the terms Non-Commercial/Non-Derivative etc have a well-defined meaning. The definition is the same for all works under this licence. Is Internet Explorer freeware? or shareware? You could probably argument both ways. Can you give an example of confusion caused by the terms Non-Commercial/Non Derivative? Do you mean: "Is use by a non-profit organisation commercial use?" This is a valid question, but you could ask the same question in case the work is freeware or shareware. > >>>CCs are here to simplify the work of the authors/creators to choose a >>>"license" without too much legal complexity and to limit the number of >>>works with no exclusive rights open (default rule of copyrights). >>> In this respect, the licence is also intended to simplify life for users of the work. Can I reuse it or not? Under which conditions? Hannelore -- Hannelore Dekeyser Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 28 05:46:20 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:46:20 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Compatible CCPL licences? (was: Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.) In-Reply-To: References: <41A3BB38.8000809@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A9AC7C.7010404@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > >>> >>>[BE] Are the BE adaptation of the CCs licenses are all compatible with >>>the other respective adaptation ? Can I use a content licensed under >>>the CC-SA-1.0(en) in my work licensed work with a CC-SA-2.0(be-fr) ? >>>In the case of CC-NC, a author in US wants to use my work licensed >>>under a CC-NC-SA-2.0(be-nl) but the belgian translation removed the >>>lending rights ? How can I proceed with this issue without contacting >>>the author ? and by contacting the author ? Can you show us a >>>practical example ? >>> >> >>The licence says which licences are compatible for derivatives in >>art. 4b) > > > I haven't see that. Can you make a copy of the respective part ? > thanks. Art. 4 b: You may distribute [...] a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan). [...] If you distribute the original work, you may not use another licence (art. 4 a) If you create a derivative you may use the current licence or any of the following: - a later version of the CCPL with the same licence elements - any international CCPL with the same licence elements. Hannelore -- Hannelore Dekeyser Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 28 05:46:47 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:46:47 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Moral rights and DRM (was: Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.) In-Reply-To: References: <41A3BB38.8000809@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A9AC97.2060509@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > > >> >>>[BE] Moral rights and use of DRM/TPMs. How can you ensure the scope of >>>the moral rights exercice to format only ? It wouldn't be better to >>>exclude fully moral rights on the various licences ? or to force the >>>scope on the 'patrimonial' side only ? >>> >> >>Could you explain this a little more? What doe moral rights have in >>common with DRM? > > > The question was more why adding in the translation reference to moral > rights ? it wouldn't be better to remove the reference to moral rights > in the translation ? > > [The relation to DRM was mainly about possible tricks done by some > author that would add kind of DRM and ask to not be removed following > the question of moral rights.] > > In American Copyright law moral rights don't exist. Copyright is purely a question of exploitation of intellectual works (money, money, money). In Belgium, we have 'droit d'auteur'/'auteursrecht', in the French tradition. This has a strong exploitation component, but also a personal component. Moral rights serve to protect the intimate relationship between an author and his creation (= legal doctrine). This is why an author has the exclusive right to determine whether his work is ready to be shown to the public (divulgation right). He has the exclusive right to publish anonymously or under his own name. The author may forbid that his work is modified in any way. These moral rights cannot be transferred or traded in any way, as this would defeat their goal: to protect the intimate relationship between author and work. The original author can only promise not to exercise his moral rights in certain situations. This is what the very last sentence of art. 3 means: "The Original Author declines to exercise his/her moral right as far as such technically-need modifications are concerned" Now, the author promises not to object to modifications technically necessary to exercise the rights given in art 3 (distribute, derivatives, ...). I think this addition in the translation is very usefull. Otherwise the original author could suddenly object to certain modifications based on his moral right, without any good reason. Note: The law always allows the original author to object against modifications that damage his reputation or deform the work. Bottom line: The original author licences you certain exploitations rights (patrimonial) and promises not to use his moral rights to undo the licence. You can't remove credit to the original author when you redistribute or create a derivative. Art. 4 d: "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium". I still don't understand the link with DRM. Moral rights appear in art. 3. DRM appears in art. 4. "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work/Derivative work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement." Now that I think about it, the Original author could licence a work under CCPL and still apply DRM to it. "You" is not the Original author. This wouldn't be very nice, and some might argue this is breach of contract. Allthough I think this is covered by the exclusion of responsability. DRM has little to do with patrimonial or moral rights. DRM is enforcing your will, not by contract/licence, but by using technology. The licence forbids "You" from doing just that. "You" is anyone who receives the work and redistributes it or creates a derivative. Hannelore -- Hannelore Dekeyser Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 28 06:39:29 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:39:29 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Copyright management information (was: Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.) In-Reply-To: References: <41A3BB38.8000809@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A9B8F1.5040403@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > >>>[BE/EU] Regarding the implementation of the 2001/29/CE, the "copyright >>>management information" of the article 7 is closely linked to the >>>article 6 of the 2001/29/CE. I'm really afraid that could be used to >>>clearly revoke the 4a stating the opposite. Why do you want to use >>>this terminology as the transposition is not done in Belgium ? Why not >>>keeping "copyright notice" ? >>> >> >>Copyright management information is not a technical measure. It's just a >>copyright claim: "Copyright owner = mr. X". > > > I don't think so. There are so many examples of interaction and link > between article 6 and article 7 of the directive. > > http://silvaneves.org/eucd/eucd-fs.en.html > > "toute information relative des droits se repr?sentant sous forme > ?lectronique" can be clearly linked to a technical measure (article 6). > I've read the article you refer to very quickly. The author pinpoints several problems in the software market, but I don't agree with how he links all these with art. 7 of the Copyright Directive. The Internet Observatory explains this directive: http://www.internet-observatory.be See Juridisch kader/ Cadre juridique I will just give you my understanding of the relevance of these articles for the CCPL. Art. 6 concerns technical measures that control use or acces. --> "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or _restrict acts_, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are _not authorised by the rightholder_ of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective. You may not knowingly circumvent such technological measures (art.6 par. 1). You may not commercially distribute circumvention tools (art. 6 par. 2) DeCSS is an example of a technological measure. The software on DVD-players that verifies the zoning information is another example. The zone flag itself is copyright management information. There is a link between article 6 and 7, but this doesn't always have to be the case (see further). Art. 7: "rights-management information" means any _information_ provided by rightholders which _identifies the work_ or other subject-matter referred to in this Directive or covered by the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, _the author_ or any other rightholder, or information about the _terms and conditions_ of use of the work or other subject-matter, and any numbers or codes that represent such information. RMI is information, about the work, the author and the licence terms. It isn't software that controls acces or use. As I said in the previous post, "You" the licensee may not apply DRM to undo the rights granted in the CCPL. You must leave any copyright management information intact, the licence says so, and so does art. 7 Copyright directive. "Original author = X". In this case you have copyright management information, without a corresponding technical measure. So in the case of the CCPL, I don't see a big problem with using the term copyright management information. Even if you don't call it that, the copyright notice _is_ copyright management information. > I don't understand why the translation is already using the > terminology of the 2001/29/CE but the transposition is not effective > in Belgium (only a law proposal at the moment). I was thinking that > the translation was using the current law (loi du 30 juin 1994). Is it > the case ? > This is standard practice and makes a lot of sense. Let me turn the question around. Why wouldn't you use terminology that you know will be used in the law in the near future? Anyway, an author can use whatever language he wants in his licence. He could call the copyright notice a 'paternity declaration' if he wanted to. The law on copyright defines certain limits to the interpretation of copyright licences, but leaves the author a lot of freedom. 'Copyright notice' or 'copyright management information' are more or less the same, in my opinion. S?verine is the expert on technical measures, so maybe she can shed more light on this issue. Hannelore -- Hannelore Dekeyser Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be Sun Nov 28 06:54:38 2004 From: hannelore.dekeyser at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Hannelore Dekeyser) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:54:38 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] Copyright exceptions (was: Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.) In-Reply-To: References: <41A3BB38.8000809@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Message-ID: <41A9BC7E.8090303@law.kuleuven.ac.be> Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote: > > >> >>>[BE] Is all the exceptions in Section 5 (Exceptions aux droits) from >>>"loi du 30 juin 1994" (from Art. 21 to Art. 24) in the licences >>>practicable ? >>> >> >>The licence gives you more rights than most of the exceptions of the >>copyright law. In this respect, these exceptions are irrelevant to this >>case. > > > In case of NC, is the art. 23 (loi du 30 juin 1994) compatible with > the case of Non-Commercial distribution ? Public institutions can ask > for money in order to lend a work. Can it be considered as "fair use" > for public institution ? It doesn't need to be compatible. The law says the author can't prohibit public lending. The CCPL can't prohibit this either. Apart from that, I'm not convinced this is commercial use. The law says the goal of public lending is 'educational or cultural'. The fact that a small fee is required to cover costs (but not to make a profit) does not make this commercial use. Of course, this is debateable. Can a non-profit organisation lend works for a small fee? There might be some doctrine or jurisprudence about this, but I'm not sure. Hannelore -- Hannelore Dekeyser Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri From Melanie.Carly at law.kuleuven.ac.be Mon Nov 29 14:46:51 2004 From: Melanie.Carly at law.kuleuven.ac.be (Melanie Carly) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:46:51 +0100 Subject: [Cc-be] end of the discussion about the draft-licenses Message-ID: <1101757610.41ab7cab00a20@webmail2.kuleuven.be> Dear all, Thank you very much for your questions and comments on the draft-licenses. We took them in consideration while making the definitive versions of the licenses. Hereby we close the discussion about the draft-licenses, but feel free to post other questions and comments about CC-BE here. Melanie Carly Beste, Hartelijk bedankt voor jullie vragen en opmerkingen over de ontwerp-licenties. We hebben ze in overweging genomen toen we de definitieve versies van de licenties opstelden. Hierbij sluiten we de discussie over de ontwerp-licenties. Uiteraard kunnen jullie hier nog steeds terecht met andere vragen en opmerkingen over CC-BE. Melanie Carly Bonjour tout le monde, Un grand merci pour vos questions et remarques sur les propositions de licences. On les a prises en consid?ration pendant qu?on r?digeait les versions d?finitives des licences. Maintenant on cl?t le d?bat sur les propositions de licences. Biens surs, vous pouvez encore poser vos questions et faire des remarques sur CC-BE ici. Melanie Carly From info at boox.be Tue Nov 30 12:36:30 2004 From: info at boox.be (Boox : Belgium Digital Artist ++) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:36:30 -0500 Subject: [Cc-be] Creative commons @ ARTE radio.com References: <1101757610.41ab7cab00a20@webmail2.kuleuven.be> Message-ID: <004b01c4d703$21496b70$1002a8c0@totoro> [fr] ARTE : ?mission radio sur les Creative Commons http://www.arteradio.com/son.html?6090 ;-)) BOOX Belgian.Digital.Artists. Visit us : www.boox.be Join us : info at boox.be