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

Cc cc at phizz.demon.co.uk
Wed Sep 18 17:39:28 EDT 2013

On 18/09/2013 01:56, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> [Limiting this response message to the URI attribution requirement
> subject, sorry— I should have split my original response]
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Cc <cc at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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?
> You appear to be assuming that there is a very simple relationship.
> Author -> Webhost -> Consumer.
> This is one model, but it is not the only one.
> What happens when there are many authors and they post works on many
> webhosts, and then additional authors, potentially including some but
> not all or none of the original authors, make further adaptations
> taking from these works and placing them on other hosts?
> The freedom to move material from place to place is fundamental in
> sharealike, and complex authorship flows involving multiple service
> providers are a reality (and has resulted in litigation).

Life is messy. Dealing with multiple people is messy.

If I were to copy a bunch of wikipedia articles and simply list the 
authors: sparky-the-undertaker, elvis has left the building, etc, etc. 
With no mention that the original was once on wikipedia I'm certain that 
the wikipedia community will be a bitchin n moaning about that.

The issue with attribution is that "sparky-the-undertaker" is the WP 
author not some one that goes by the same name on some other site. Even 
worse if the material is copied from site WP to site B and there ever 
exists on site B some one called "sparky-the-undertaker" who is not the 
same as the site WP person then the authorship has effectively been 

I think that if you can get all the contributors of a work to agree to a 
new URI then fine, if not then you are stuffed and rightly so.

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list