Development of Creative Commons licenses

[evan AT wikitravel.org]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 09:22:55AM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:

> I believe that people misunderstood the differences between attribution
> and nonattribution in 1.0: I think that even if you chose nonattribution you
> still got your name mentioned in the copyrights as part of the licensing (is
> that right?).

No, it's not right. The Attribution clause is the one that requires
copyright notices to be preserved. sa 1.0, for example, doesn't require
copyright notices to be preserved, just license notification.

I think you're really, really misunderstanding the Attribution clause.
Conflating it with the BSD advertising clause is really, really inaccurate.
It has nothing to do with advertising, and the requirements are nowhere near
as obnoxious, nor are there the problems of scale that come from the
advertizing clause.

This is the advertizing clause from 3-clause BSD:

"3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
   software must display the following acknowledgement:
   'This product includes software developed by the University of
   California, Berkeley and its contributors.'"
   
It talks about advertizing. This is the Attribution clause from the CC 2.0
licenses:

"If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You
must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original
Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by
conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if
supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably
practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor
specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to
the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case
of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the
Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author,"
or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may
be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case
of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will
appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner
at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit."

It doesn't talk about advertizing. See the difference?

~ESP