[cc-licenses] CC0 beta/discussion draft launch

Jordan S Hatcher jordan at opencontentlawyer.com
Thu Jan 24 10:16:16 EST 2008


On 23 Jan 2008, at 00:39, Mike Linksvayer wrote:

> On 1/17/08, Jordan S Hatcher <jordan at opencontentlawyer.com> wrote:
>> I
>> The major points:
>>
>> -- (Just a note/comment) this is based on US law and isn't an
>> 'unported' version. Is the unported template for internationalization
>> the Science Commons protocol?
>> -- Waiver of moral rights and the conversation we've been having
>> about CC v3.01
>> -- There is no sign up process like the current public domain
>> dedication -- Why not? I'd think that a 'signed writing' would be
>> needed or at least desired. Does this process fit that requirement?
>> If not, do you think some email process should be there?
>
> I have no idea what qualifies as 'signed writing', so please educate
> me, but I proposed this change internally because the email
> verification doesn't verify anything -- any email address can be
> provided and clicked through -- it is no different than just clicking
> through another web form. The intention is for the confirmation form
> to be scarier than it is now to warn people off, but we didn't have
> time to flesh that out by the 15th (which was our self-imposed
> deadline for opening for public feedback). That is definitely coming
> (and the same language should presumably be used in an email
> confirmation, if that is the rubber chicken that is legally required).

I don't know what is legally required. My thoughts are that  
assignments -- transferring your entire copyright to another --  
usually require (AFAIK) some sort of signed writing. So you could  
have an oral license but only a written assignment.  I haven't done  
any research in-depth on this one, but I'm just wondering if it could  
be a part of trying to do a public domain dedication.  Some other  
thoughts are here:

<http://www.opendatacommons.org/2007/12/20/implementing-the-public- 
domain-dedication/>



>
> So clicking a link in email is no different than clicking a link on a
> web page (I say!:)), but the latter is far superior in the context of
> a license chooser integrated with another site, which is how lots of
> people choose a CC license, and probably will choose CC0.
>
> Finally, going through the PD dedication, license chooser, or CC0
> chooser doesn't actually dedicate, license, or waive anything. That
> requires actually publishing the code provided on a web page or pages
> you control. *That* is the step that is (logically, in my mind anyway)
> equivalent to signing something. It is a distinct choice, and if you
> don't do it, nothing is effected.

Good point that it is the placing on the content that is the act in  
this case.  Still not sure how that fits in, I'll have to think more  
about this one.

~Jordan


>
> Thanks again and in advance,
> Mike
>


____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com
IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net

Open Data Commons
<http://opendatacommons.org>

Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007







More information about the cc-licenses mailing list