CC 2.0

melanie dulong de rosnay melanie.dulong-de-rosnay at
Mon Feb 16 17:39:24 EST 2004


We met to discuss CC 2.O draft new provisions, and compatibility issues
between CC BY-SA and Free Art License, which share the same common deed.
Here are some common remarks:

1. Comment on CC 2.0

New 5.a optional disclaimer might be unenforceable under French law, whereas
CC 1.0 warranties make CC licenses legally robust.
Free Art License does not repeat what CC 1.0 and applicable French law
already say, assuming Licensor liability is defined by legislation.

2. Digital/ Material Works

In the digital world, distinction between an original and a copy is not
significant except maybe that the original is the very first instance of a
work in time.
In the material world, this distinction is obvious, and was integrated in
the Free Art License design since it prevents the original from being
altered, only copies can be modified.

Does CC make a difference between the original work and a copy ?
Does a CC license protects an original work's integrity ?

Thanks for your attention and comments,

Antoine Moreau, Isabelle Vodjdani and Romain d'Alverny
Copyleft Attitude

Melanie Dulong de Rosnay
CERSA (working on porting the CC licenses to France)

> De la part de Mike Linksvayer
> Envoye : lundi 9 fevrier 2004 18:44
> A : Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
> Objet : Re: CC 2.0
> Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> What bothers me is that the argument that was specifically about
>> creating _additional_ licenses seems to have been reinterpreted into
>> changing _all_ licenses. There is great value for publishers, users,
>> creators of derivative works, and, yes, even original authors
>> themselves in having the warranty section. Removing it for a minority
>> of creators who don't feel comfortable with asserting and warrantying
>> their right to publish makes the work of the rest of us less useful
>> and worthwhile.
> Until last week on this list I don't recall ever hearing anyone voice
> support for in-license warranties.  Their existence was people's #1
> complaint.  Coupled with the value in keeping the number of licenses
> small (and making choosing a license relatively simple), it seemed to
> make sense to remove the warranty section from all licenses.
> Note that there is an opening in the 2.0 drafts for adding a warranty
> not specified in the license itself.  Perhaps given the recent
> pro-warranty feedback we should offer such a warranty concurrently with
> offering the 2.0 licenses.  I have a proposal on the cc-metadata list
> (see last month's
> archives, sorry for no specific link, I'm offline at the moment) for
> dealing with the metadata.
>> I realize my continual harping on this issue is probably pretty
>> annoying. I apologize for that.
> Not at all.  It would've been nice if you harped when others were
> harping on the opposite, but your feedback is valuable in any case.
> Question: AFAIK none of the major open source licenses contain a
> CC1.0-like warranty clause.  Is this a problem?

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list