Discussione delle licenze Creative Commons

[Lorenzo De Tomasi <lorenzo.detomasi AT creativecommons.it>]

Inoltro il messaggio di Glenn Otis Brown alla lista ufficiale 
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org.
Qualcuno potrebbe tradurlo?

Ciao,
Lorenzo

Inizio del messaggio inoltrato:

> Da: "Glenn Otis Brown" <glenn AT creativecommons.org>
> Data: Mer 26 Mag 2004  02:28:04 Europe/Rome
> A: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" 
> <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Oggetto: 2.0
> Rispondere-A: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts 
> <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>
> Some of you are already on this, of course. Here's our post from today
> explaining the changes.
>
> --
>
> Announcing (and explaining) our new 2.0 licenses
> 2004-05-25
> Glenn Otis Brown
>
> Last night, after many months of gathering and processing great
> feedback[1] from all of you[2], we turned on version 2.0 of the main
> Creative Commons licenses. The 2.0 licenses are very similar to the
> 1.0 licenses -- in aim, in structure, and, by and large, in the text
> itself. We've included, however, a few key improvements, thanks to
> your input. A quick list of new features follows. All section numbers
> refer to the Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 2.0[3] license.
> (Corresponding section numbers may vary across licenses.)
>
> ***Attribution comes standard
>
> Our web stats indicate that 97-98% of you choose Attribution, so we
> decided to drop Attribution as a choice from our license menu[4] --
> it's now standard. This reduces the number of licenses from eleven
> possible to six and makes the license selection user interface that
> much simpler. Important to remember: Attribution can always be
> disavowed upon licensor request, and pseudonymous and anonymous
> authorship are always options for a licensor, as before. If we see a
> huge uprising against the attribution-as-stock-feature, we'll
> certainly consider bringing it back as an option.
>
> ***Link-back attribution clarified
>
> Version 1.0 licenses did not carry any requirements to add hyperlinks
> as attribution. Under the 2.0 licenses, a licensor may require that
> licensees, to fulfill their attribution requirement, provide a link
> back to the licensor's work. Three conditions must be satisfied,
> though, before a licensee faces the linkback requirement: (1) linking
> back must be "reasonably practicable" -- you can't string me up for
> failing to link to a dead page, for example; (2) the licensor must
> specify a URL -- if you don't provide one specifically, I have no
> linkback obligation; (3) the link licensor provides must point to the
> copyright and licensing notice of the CC'd work -- in other words,
> licensors who abuse the linkback as an engine for traffic to unrelated
> sites don't enjoy linkback rights.
>
> ***Synch rights clarified
>
> The new licenses clarify when licensees may or may not synchronize
> musical CC'd works in timed-relation with a moving image. Basically,
> if a license allows derivatives, it allows the synching of music to
> video. If no derivs, no synching allowed. (See Section 1b[5].)
>
> ***Other music-specific rights clarified
>
> The default rules for music-related copyrights can be particularly
> complicated, and the 2.0 licenses go to greater length to clarify how
> various CC license options affect music rights. In a nutshell: If you
> pick the "noncommercial" provision, you retain the right to collect
> royalties from BMI, ASCAP, or the equivalent for performance
> royalties; from Harry Fox or the equivalent for mechanicals; and from
> SoundExchange or the equivalent for webcasting compulsories. If you
> allow commercial re-use, you waive the exclusive rights to collect
> these various revenue streams. This is not a departure from the policy
> embodied in the 1.0 licenses -- these same results would be
> extrapolated by any reasonable interpretation. But 2.0 just makes it
> all clearer, and using the language of the profession. (See Sections
> 4e and 4f[6].) Note: This music-specific language marks the first time
> we've referred to any specific statutes in the generic CC licenses.
> This means that future iCommons licenses will have to do the same
> somewhat complicated mapping exercise for each respective
> jurisdiction.
>
> ***Warranties? Up to licensors
>
> Unlike the 1.0 licenses, the 2.0 licenses include language that makes
> clear that licensors' disclaim warranties of title, merchantibility,
> fitness, etc. As readers of this blog know by now, the decision to
> drop warranties as a standard feature of the licenses was a source of
> much organizational soul-searching and analytical thinking for us.
> Ultimately we were swayed by a two key factors: (1) Our peers, most
> notably, Karl Lenz[7], Dan Bricklin[8], and MIT[9]. (2) The
> realization that licensors could sell warranties to risk-averse,
> high-exposure licensees interested in the due diligence paper trial,
> thereby creating nice CC business model. (See the Prelinger Archive
> [10] for a great example of this free/fee, as-is/warranty approach.)
> You can find extensive discussion of this issue[11] in previous posts
> on this blog. (See Section 5[12].)
>
> ***Share Alike Across Borders
>
> Version 2.0 licenses that feature the Share Alike requirement now
> clarify that derivatives may be re-published under one of three types
> of licenses: (1) the exact same license as the original work; (2) a
> later version of the same license as the original work; (3) an
> iCommons license that contains the same license elements as the
> original work (e.g. BY-SA-NC, as defined in Section 1[13] of each
> license). The version 1.0 licenses required that derivative be
> published under the *exact same license* only. Our tweak means much
> better compatibility across future jurisdiction-specific licenses and,
> going forward, across versions. Less forking, more fun. (See Section
> 4b[14].)
>
> ***Otherwise, Share Alike Means Share Alike
>
> After much very strong and eloquent argument from our readers and
> supporters, and notwithstanding the increased flexibility of Share
> Alike in the iCommons context, we decided *not* to make the BY-NC-SA
> and plain BY-SA licenses compatible. If you take a work under BY-NC-SA
> 2.0 and make something new from it, for example, you can re-publish
> under BY-NC-SA Japan, or BY-NC-SA 7.4 (when that comes), but you
> cannot republish it under any other license or combine it with BY-SA
> content. Similarly, a derivative made from a work under BY-SA 2.0 may
> be published only under BY-SA 2.0, BY-SA (iCommons license), or BY-SA
> 9.1, but it can't be mixed with BY-NC-SA or other noncommercial
> content and republished.
>
> ***Nifty new Some Rights Reserved button
>
> Check out the button at the bottom of this page. Wouldn't that look
> good on your site? Time for an upgrade, cosmetic as well as legal?_
>
> [1] https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/
> [2] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3981
> [3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
> [4] http://creativecommons.org/license/
> [5] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
> [6] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
> [7] http://k.lenz.name/LB/
> [8] http://www.bricklin.com/
> [9] http://www.mit.edu/
> [10] http://www.prelinger.com/prelarch.html
> [11] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3681
> [12] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
> [13] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
> [14] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode
> ---------------------
> Glenn Otis Brown
> Executive Director
> Creative Commons
> glenn AT creativecommons.org
> +1.650.723.7572 (telephone)
> +1.415.336.1433 (mobile)
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses