Creative Commons - Belgium

[Hannelore Dekeyser <hannelore.dekeyser AT law.kuleuven.ac.be>]

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