Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 16 Aug 2004, at 18:06, evan AT wikitravel.org wrote:

> 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 thought that the attribution clause was the one that required your 
name to be stuck in the credits separate from the licensing info. 
Re-reading 1.0 I see that this is indeed in with the copyrights.

So is it OK to strip the copyrights under CC not-BY 1.0? This sounds 
slightly strange (the license hinges on copyright, there's moral rights 
as well), but I'm not an expert on US law...

> 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.

They differ in degree, but both require additional "payment" from the 
user in the form of sticking a name on a product.

- Rob.