Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: IN?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james.grimmelmann AT gmail.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: IN?
  • Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:55:24 -0400

http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/icommons-canada/ says

"*Please note that the Canadian creator moral right of attribution is
retained while the right of integrity is expressely waived in all
versions of the cc-ca licence 2.4. To learn more about the moral
rights automatically granted to Canadian creators, we encourage you to
read our Moral Rights FAQ.*"

The FAQ is not so clear on this point, but from what I can tell
browsing the public web pages, the IN appears to be only an element
under discussion -- and one that was rejected for purposes of the
licenses available through CC. If you go through the license picker
and choose "Canada" as your jurisdiction, you get a license that
explicitly waives all moral rights of integrity.

James

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:09:39 -0400, Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 00:17 +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> > "The right of integrity also protects creators from having their works
> > associated with products, services, causes or institutions that would
> > harm their honour or reputation. In Creative Commons-speak this is
> > called the INTEGRITY licence element. Note: This element is currently
> > being proposed and is not yet available."
> >
> > http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/icommons-canada/moral-rights.html
>
> Wow. That's really, really stupid. Who the hell thought that one up?
> It's a revocable license, which is bad enough, but also a license that
> can be revoked at whim. "You are entitled to use this work in any way
> you want, except if it bothers me, in which case I can sue your ass real
> hard. Enjoy this work as you quiver in fear."
>
> This should just be called the Creative Commons Thoughtless A-hole
> License and be done with it. Whoever even proposed that should be
> ashamed of themselves. I'm embarrassed that anyone would even think that
> this was a donation to the creative commons in even the slightest way.
>
> ~ESP
>
> --
> Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>
>
>



  • IN?, Rob Myers, 10/05/2004
    • Re: IN?, Evan Prodromou, 10/06/2004
      • Re: IN?, Rob Myers, 10/06/2004
        • Re: IN?, Alex Schroeder, 10/08/2004
      • Re: IN?, Gottfried Hofmann, 10/06/2004
      • Re: IN?, James Grimmelmann, 10/06/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page