[cc-licenses] Draft 4 discussion period: license drafts and open issues
cc at phizz.demon.co.uk
Tue Sep 17 19:56:02 EDT 2013
On 17/09/2013 23:50, drew Roberts wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 September 2013 17:57:32 Sarah Pearson wrote:
>> Is there a reason you think indicating a URI via terms of service is
>> particularly problematic? Why is it worse than indicating a URI in a
>> license notice, for example?
> One a quick browse, I think his point is that a hosting provider could require
> (via their terms of service) you to use a URI of their choosing on your work
> rather than one of your choosing. I think it goes along with the point that
> terms of service are generally take it or leave it deals and not the subject
> of negotiations.
Surely it is up to the content creator whether she uses one particular
web host or another? Additionally, there is nothing to prevent a creator
placing the same content on multiple hosting sites. For example if I
place content on flickr I don't think that Mr Maxwell can come along and
ignore the URI requirement because he has a beef with Yahoo!, or indeed
that I should be able to ignore the URI of content on Picassa becuase I
have a problem with Google. If the URI is a problem we are both free to
NOT use the relevant hosted content.
More information about the cc-licenses