Creative Commons Attribution license element

MJ Ray mjr at
Tue Jun 8 19:44:14 EDT 2004

On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou <evan at> wrote:

> a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike,
> NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require
> Attribution would also fall under this analysis.

Do any SA/NC/ND licences not include attribution?

> This is not, of course, canonical for Debian, but it does provide some
> suggestion that a group following guidelines similar to ours don't see
> a serious problem with requiring attribution.

I don't think OSI follows similar guidelines. Notably, Debian does not 
require contributors to its process to use non-free software, defaults 
to "no consensus" (sometimes annoyingly so) and only produces licence 
summaries if driven.

Even so, I'd be amazed that OSI approved a licence that includes 
advertising in the licence and requires a program to do a particular 
act, were I not already convinced that OSI has gone bad. The 
Initiative Failed a long time ago, it seems. In the words of USPTO: 
Opensource is Dead.

> [...] Apache 2.0 also requires attribution (in the NOTICE file).

I still think that licence looks like it has be considered 
case-by-case, as there is scope to abuse it.

> 3) As for the trademark clause [...] If A grants B the
> rights outlined in Attribution 1.0, no increase in trademark
> restrictions by the third-party Creative Commons could revoke those
> rights.

Can you explain this more? How is it compliance with the licence not 
to obtain "prior written consent of Creative Commons" before using 
their trademark in a normally-permitted manner that is not "in 
compliance with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage 
guidelines" ?

My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl!

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list