[cc-licenses] Changes to attribution: your attention wanted

Dj Everette djeverette at gmail.com
Thu Oct 4 21:37:39 EDT 2012


We must be specific and include the title otherwise too muddy to trace if
needed.
On Oct 1, 2012 7:44 AM, "jonathon" <jonathon.blake at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/29/2012 04:02 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
>
> > Removing title of work:
> > The title of the work is no longer a requirement for proper attribution,
> though it is encouraged that licensees preserve it if it is given.
>
> Without the title, how is one to know which content by the specific
> content creator is meant?
>
> By way of example, suppose I do a derivative of Da Vinci's _The Last
> Support_ as a 3D sculpture. Except instead of labelling it as such, I
> simply say: "Derived from a study by Da Vinci".
>
> > "You may satisfy the conditions [..] in any reasonable manner based on
> > the medium, means, and context":
>
> > This is a new aspect, expecially "context".
>
> "Context" is going to be misunderstood by those that are not familiar
> with the norms of the format they are using.
>
> > flexibility and ease of compliance--proper attribution may be given by
>   providing a URI that contains all of the required attribution
> information.
>
> Is as much as the half life of the typical webpage is less than 18
> months, by allowing a URI, rather than requiring it to be included in
> the content, means that both the license terms and conditions will be
> for all practical purposes, _All Rights Reserved_, within four years of
> the release of the content.  (Try proving that the license data on the
> page that one accessed is identical to the license data that the
> original creator used.)
>
> It also makes due diligence much harder. As it is, there are half a
> dozen sites, such as Scribus, that, as a matter of course, relicense
> ARR content, and CC-BY-NC content to CC-BY, or PD.
>
> > opinion on: "if You Share Adapted Material, You must indicate the
>   Licensed Material was used and describe the changes made." (This would
>   also be "reasonable to the medium, means, and context", as the other
>   attribution information would be.)
>
> Whilst I appreciate the thought behind this requirement, adhering to it
> is a nightmare, unless one uses something like subversion to distribute
> the content.
>
> > 1. What existing uses of the licenses would this break or make
>   extremely difficult, and how could it be improved?
>
> ODF_Authors has a policy of identifying the general changes to
> documentation they produce for OpenOffice.org, LibreOffice, NeoOfice,
> and Apache Open Office that they create. Sometimes it is as short as
> "updated for LO 3.6". Other times the description is much more detailed.
>
> > 2. What kind of description should be required: should a verbal
>   description be required, or is the ability to see and compare the
>   changes enough?
>
> Identify the general changes, but not require each and every specific
> change to be documented within the content
>
> > 3. Is this desirable to put in the license at all, or should it simply
>   be a best practice?
>
> Maybe "Best Practice".
>
> jonathon
>
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20121004/97e7a562/attachment.html 


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list