[cc-licenses] Draft 4 discussion period: license drafts and open issues

Federico Morando 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 
unnecessary parenthesis;
-- 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.




Federico MORANDO
Director of Research and Policy &
Research Fellow

NEXA Center for Internet & Society
Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24

tel.: +39 011 090 5954
fax: +39 011 090 7216
mob: +39 339 7507974
mail: federico.morando at polito.it
web: http://nexa.polito.it

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20130918/c5b0cf02/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list