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: Alexandre Dulaunoy <alexandre.dulaunoy AT ael.be>
  • To: Hannelore Dekeyser <hannelore.dekeyser AT law.kuleuven.ac.be>
  • Cc: cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org, Alexandre.Dulaunoy AT ael.be
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-be] Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.
  • Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:56:20 +0100 (CET)

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote:

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

Some and some more questions ;-)

>
> 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.

As an author, you can use the license/contract/... that you want. But
if you are an author doing free software, you will use a free software
license respecting the four freedoms of free software.

http://www.be.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
(For the list of qualified free software licenses)

And Creative Commons is clear about that :

http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3646

"Can I use a Creative Commons license for software?

In theory, yes, but it is not in your best interest. We strongly
encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available
today. (The Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative
stand out as resources for such licenses.) Unlike our licenses --
which do not make mention of source or object code -- these existing
licenses were designed specifically for use with software."

CCs are not well suited for free software or functional works.

> >
> [...]
> > 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.

I don't think so. e.g. : Non-Commercial/Non-Derivative is clearly the
old concept of proprietary shareware with a new terminology. But a lot
of people are using NC without seeing the clear
implication. Non-Commercial distribution is a fuzzy concept.

> > 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)

I haven't see that. Can you make a copy of the respective part ?
thanks.

>
> 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?

The question was more why adding in the translation reference to moral
rights ? it wouldn't be better to remove the reference to moral rights
in the translation ?

[The relation to DRM was mainly about possible tricks done by some
author that would add kind of DRM and ask to not be removed following
the question of moral rights.]

>
> > [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".

I don't think so. There are so many examples of interaction and link
between article 6 and article 7 of the directive.

http://silvaneves.org/eucd/eucd-fs.en.html

"toute information relative des droits se représentant sous forme
électronique" can be clearly linked to a technical measure (article 6).

I don't understand why the translation is already using the
terminology of the 2001/29/CE but the transposition is not effective
in Belgium (only a law proposal at the moment). I was thinking that
the translation was using the current law (loi du 30 juin 1994). Is it
the case ?

> [...]>
> > [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.

In case of NC, is the art. 23 (loi du 30 juin 1994) compatible with
the case of Non-Commercial distribution ? Public institutions can ask
for money in order to lend a work. Can it be considered as "fair use"
for public institution ?

Thanks for any feedback,

Best regards,

adulau

--
** Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) **** http://www.foo.be/ **** 0x44E6CBCD
**/ "To disable the Internet to save EMI and Disney is the moral
**/ equivalent of burning down the library of Alexandria to ensure the
**/ livelihood of monastic scribes." Jon Ippolito.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page