[Cc-uk] Revised draft Scottish licence
david at illsley.org
Wed Apr 20 03:11:46 EDT 2005
Thanks for the reply...
On 19 Apr 2005, at 23:47, Jonathan Mitchell wrote:
> 1. Taking 2.1.i first, which says "you must… keep intact all notices
> refer to this Licence…", this is simply driven by the generic licence
> has in 4b "You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License
> to the disclaimer of warranties". The EW licence says " to the extent
> reasonably practicable, keep intact all notices that refer to this
> in particular the URI, if any, that the Licensor specifies to be
> with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice
> licensing information for the Work". With all respect I don't follow
> point of the English variations.
I read the English variation to mean that if, in creating a derivative
work of a CC-EW work, and releasing CC-Generic, I can remove the CC-EW
link as it 'does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing of the
Work'. Having re-read Generic, it appears that for total conformity,
even this sensible loophope probably isn't compatible. (My concern is
that there are links to multiple licences in a derivative work and it
isn't clear which one applies to the derivative work as a whole)
> 2. So far as 2.3 is concerned, David is quite right that there are
> loopholes in the ability to create a derivative work and publish this
> a different licence: he says, "a worry I have is that an American
> might take
> a work licensed
> under CC-Scotland, change the colour of the text and release this
> derivative work under CC-Generic". A change in the colour of the text
> wouldn't make it a derivative work, but any serious change would do so,
> clause 1b of generic. I don't think I see a difference in end result
> the Scottish, English, and generic definitions of 'derivative work',
> are in substance:
> Scottish: "a work that Uses the Work (or any substantial part of the
> in any material form whatsoever, other than as a whole and in
> English: "any work created by the editing, modification, adaptation or
> translation of the Work in any media";
> Generic: "a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other
> works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
> abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be
> transformed, or adapted"
> The difference is one of presentation and understanding, not effect.
> solution, if concerned, is to use a non-derivative edition; like other
> projects, we use non-commercial/ derivative/share-alike as a template
> because it raises all the issues.
My concern was not over to definition of derivative works, but that it
provides a hole through which to exploit the next bit.
> 3. David also says "At this point the moral rights
> language has been stripped from the licence to the work and presumably
> someone in the UK can then take that CC-Generic work and create a
> derogatory work and release it under whatever CC licence they like with
> the same elements." I don't think so. Section 80 rights to object to
> derogatory treatment are not (I am open to correction) enforceable in
> the US
> anyway, but they would remain enforceable in the UK under the statute,
> because they would never have been waived. Incidentally, if they
> mentioned in the licence at all, they still wouldn't be waived; the
> for 2.1.f explicitly reserving the right to object is simply to avoid
> misunderstanding, given how differently the right is treated in
> jurisdictions, although I do know that many jurisdictions where the
> cannot be waived haven't bothered to say so.
Ah, it is as I hoped. Good.
> 6. On 6.2, which as revised says "This Licence is the entire agreement
> between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. It
> replaces any
> earlier understandings, agreements or representations with respect to
> Work not specified here", the difference from the generic " This
> constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to
> Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or
> representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor
> not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any
> communication from You. This License may not be modified without the
> written agreement of the Licensor and You" is to make clear, I hope,
> the parties can always reach a different agreement later if they want
What effect does it have on previous agreements though?
Thanks for the detailed responses,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3251 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-uk/attachments/20050420/718667f1/attachment.bin
More information about the Cc-uk