[cc-licenses] Draft 4 discussion period: license drafts and open issues
federico.morando at gmail.com
Wed Sep 18 10:50:26 EDT 2013
I hope this is not touching issues already discussed, but we (meaning
the CC Italy working group) have a few questions/suggestions (not
necessarily concerning the latest changes of draft 4).
The two relatively more "substantial" comments are:
- in section 3 (b) Share Alike: why does the license read "if You
*produce and Share* Adapted Material"?
-- Does this mean "if you Share an Adapted Material that you produced"?
If so, "produce" can be deleted, since the definition of Adapted
Material already requires that "You" produced the Material itself.
-- Or does this mean "if You produce and/or Share Adapted Material"? If
so, "and/or" should be said explicitly (and the choice of limiting the
freedom to create Adapted Material for your own consumption should be
discussed on this list... I can figure out some cases in which this
makes sense, but it's a delicate policy choice!).
- in section 4, letter (c) should become (b) and /vice versa/. In fact,
in our understanding, section (c) applies to "the contents of the
database *included in the Licensed Material*" (and does not specifically
concern an Adapted Material based on it): this is clear and
uncontroversial if the content of what is not letter (c) appears before
talking about any derivative database, but it's less clear if (c)
follows the content of (b);
-- in any case, adding "included in the Licensed Material" (after "the
contents of the database") could be helpful in interpreting this section.
Two other comments are:
- again in section 4, letter (b), the parenthesis "(but not its
individual contents)" should be deleted: for many of us, it was
considered just tautological (and present as a reminder of the fact that
the law about databases does not generate autonomous rights on the
contents of such databases), but some other people suggested some
strange interpretations (e.g., suggesting that public domain content
included in the Adapted Material could be kept somehow /de facto/
"proprietary", despite the Share Alike license). It would be better to
prevent such strange interpretations, deleting the content of this
-- the clarification concerning the working of the law on databases (and
not the CC license) could be provided in a FAQ, instead;
- in the definition of Share, why does the licenses include
"reproduction" in the list of the "means or process" used to provide
material to the public? In fact, making available is already and rightly
included in the list (which is, in any case, just an exemplification and
not an exhaustive list)... Again, adding "reproduction" suggested to
some of our lawyers some strange interpretations, such as the idea that
acts of reproductions which are just preparatory to making available
(such as uploading a file on your own FTP server, even if you keep the
password for yourself) could constitute "sharing"... I assume this is
not the intention of CC, but I could not provide an explanation about
the inclusion of "reproduction" in the list (apart from a generic "to be
I'm of course available to clarify our position, in case it does not
emerge clearly from the points above.
Director of Research and Policy &
NEXA Center for Internet & Society
Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24
10129 TORINO - ITALY
tel.: +39 011 090 5954
fax: +39 011 090 7216
mob: +39 339 7507974
mail: federico.morando at polito.it
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses