Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-be - Re: [Cc-be] Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.

cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons - Belgium

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hannelore Dekeyser <hannelore.dekeyser AT law.kuleuven.ac.be>
  • To: Alexandre.Dulaunoy AT ael.be, cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-be] Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.
  • Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:35:36 +0100

Hi,

just a quick reply to some of your remarks. I hope others will provide some more answers.

Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
Hi All,


* Introduction or do I understand the CCs ?

First of all, I want to be sure that I understood the CCs and the
coverage of CCs. The CCs coverage is primarily the non-functional
works[1] therefore functional works are normally covered by other
licenses. Functional works are software, "computer programs",
functional documentation[2] or works having an integrated part of
another functional works.

Computer programs can be licenced with the CC. In practice, the GPL is one of the most popular open source licences for software.


[...]
CCs is a framework proposed to authors/creators to pick various
licenses by granting or revoking certains of their rights. It's
difficult to find exactly which licences can be considered as free[3]
as a large part is clearly non-free[4] but proposes a clarification of
old classical approach (e.g. : No Derivative and/or No Commercial is a
clarification of the old proprietary concept "Shareware").

[BE/Global] CCs should use a clear terminology when using
"free"/libre/vrij terms. Are the proposed licenses free or not ? an
update to the existing could be a good way.


In my opinion, Commercial of Non-Commercial, Derivatives or No-Derivatives, Share-Alike or Freeride is pretty clear.

The open source initiative certifies open source licences upon request. www.opensource.org

CCs are here to simplify the work of the authors/creators to choose a
"license" without too much legal complexity and to limit the number of
works with no exclusive rights open (default rule of copyrights).

If you feel I misunderstand something, please let me know.

* My comments on the belgian transposition :

(Scope : Compatibilities or can I exchange work with CCs world and/or
the other communities ? DRM clause issue ? 2001/29/CE still not
transposed in Belgium but why using terminology from it ? Moral rights
and patrimonial rights in CCs ?)

[Note: in this case, 'use' is using the original work in another new
original work]

[BE] Are the BE adaptation of the CCs licenses are all compatible with
the other respective adaptation ? Can I use a content licensed under
the CC-SA-1.0(en) in my work licensed work with a CC-SA-2.0(be-fr) ?
In the case of CC-NC, a author in US wants to use my work licensed
under a CC-NC-SA-2.0(be-nl) but the belgian translation removed the
lending rights ? How can I proceed with this issue without contacting
the author ? and by contacting the author ? Can you show us a
practical example ?

The licence says which licences are compatible for derivatives in art. 4b)

Where does it say the lending rights are removed? The scope of rights should be more or less the same.

[BE/Global] Are the BE adaption compatible the other CCs ? is there
a compatibility matrix available somewhere with all the CCs licences ?

The licence indicates this for derivatives: art. 4 b


[BE] Moral rights and use of DRM/TPMs. How can you ensure the scope of
the moral rights exercice to format only ? It wouldn't be better to
exclude fully moral rights on the various licences ? or to force the
scope on the 'patrimonial' side only ?

Could you explain this a little more? What doe moral rights have in common with DRM?

[BE/EU] Regarding the implementation of the 2001/29/CE, the "copyright
management information" of the article 7 is closely linked to the
article 6 of the 2001/29/CE. I'm really afraid that could be used to
clearly revoke the 4a stating the opposite. Why do you want to use
this terminology as the transposition is not done in Belgium ? Why not
keeping "copyright notice" ?


Copyright management information is not a technical measure. It's just a copyright claim: "Copyright owner = mr. X".


[...]>
[BE] Is all the exceptions in Section 5 (Exceptions aux droits) from
"loi du 30 juin 1994" (from Art. 21 to Art. 24) in the licences
practicable ?


The licence gives you more rights than most of the exceptions of the copyright law. In this respect, these exceptions are irrelevant to this case.

Kind regards,


Hannelore

[...]

--
Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and ICT.
http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page