[cc-community] Rant about CC licenses

Eric Hellman eric at hellman.net
Wed Dec 18 09:34:31 EST 2013


The language came from my lawyer; I had a similar reaction as you did, but legal language is not my field. I'd be very interested to hear other opinions!

My understanding is that any of the CC licenses depend for their force on the licensee being able to document the proper conveyance of the license, which is problematic if they have not been conveyed the license by the rights holder. So in practice, there's not so much difference. At least until we get some cryptographic signing conventions in place.


On Dec 18, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com> wrote:

>> After {{ cc_date }}, this book shall be released under a {{ license
>> }} license at which time the above restricted license terms shall be
>> replaced and superseded by the terms of the applicable Creative
>> Commons license {{license_url }}
> The phrasing of this seems to say that /another/ release needs to happen in the future, by which the book will become Creative Commons licensed. Looking over a few of the documentation on unglue.it site, I seem to see the same idea.
> Perhaps it makes sense that unglue.it has to be the intermediary that makes sure the copyright holder will release another version, since the criterion is amount of funding received via unglue.it. However, in Mitar's proposal, if I understand it correctly, it's the language of the license itself that makes sure that after a date, the work is under CC0.
> I think the two are not the same. The first depends on someone taking another action (unglue.it, perhaps the copyright holder(s) also), while the second is supposed to happen when the time expires.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20131218/74ffb10e/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the cc-community mailing list