Discussione delle licenze Creative Commons

[Andrea Glorioso <sama AT miu-ft.org>]

Ciao a tutti.

E`  una  notizia oramai  vecchia, ma  non  ho  visto  passare  mail in
proposito sulle mailing list di CC Italia - mi scuso in anticipo se mi
sono sfuggite.

Il cambiamento piu` rilevante e` nelle clausole 4(a) e 4(b), come si
puo` leggere nella e-mail di Mia Garlick.

Per   piacere,  rispondete a  cc-it AT lists.ibiblio.it  per   i commenti
legali, a community AT creativecommons.it   per  ogni altro   commento  o
discussione.

Ciao,

andrea

--- Begin Message ---

• From: Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>
• To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
• Subject: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
• Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:33:56 -0700

So a new license draft has been posted here: http://creativecommons.org/drafts/by_2.5.pdf

As you can see, the changes relate to attribution and the plan is that they take effect across all of our core licenses. The new version will be 2.5 because it is a minor change. We are in the process of working through other revisions to the licenses that will form the basis for version 3.0 but this change is needed now to take account of the demands of wikis & the open access journal community.

The main changes are to clause 4(b) (citing to the Attribution license, which is the license that forms the basis of the sample draft) and the reasons for these are twofold:

(1) To take account of the needs of people who create wikis and thus allow attribution to the wiki rather than the author or to the wiki and one or more authors as they prefer

(2) To take account of the open access journal requirements, namely, that academics and others can secure attribution to themselves and their university or sponsoring institute and/or the journal

The change to clause 4(a) is a clarification that the right removal applies to all of the accreditation required in clause 4(b). With the attribution requirement becoming more complex, it is important to clarify the attribution to which the right of removal refers to avoid confusion. This also addresses the concerns of some that this right of removal was unclear.

Many of you have given comments on the beta wiki license which have been very useful. The difference between this license draft and the beta wiki is that attribution in this draft can be to the author and/or one or more other parties. The beta wiki license only permitted attribution to the author *or* another party or parties. Also, we have included an additional example in the brackets to make it clear that one of the attributed parties may be a journal.

Additional comments on these proposed changes are welcome.

Mia Garlick
General Counsel
543 Howard St., 5th Floor
San Francisco CA 94105-3013
United States
Tel: 415-946-3073
Fax: 415-946-3001
http://creativecommons.org/

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal
advice nor should they be relied upon as or represented to be legal
advice. Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice. You
need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons' tools for your
particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate legal
advice from a licensed attorney.

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--- End Message ---

--
Andrea Glorioso             sama AT miu-ft.org         +39 333 820 5723
        .:: Media Innovation Unit - Firenze Tecnologia ::.
              Conquering the world for fun and profit

Attachment: pgpNLqDlfMggo.pgp
Description: PGP signature