Development of Creative Commons licenses

[nono2sco <nono2sco AT yahoo.com>]

Hi Rob,

Thanks again for your response and your statement of
interest.

I do think the changes to the GrokLaw Mission and
Comments Policy pages are positive ones.  To make it
easier to see here are the Comments Policy changes
that were made.

Comments Policy 12-29-2004
 
"The Groklaw site is copyrighted by Pamela Jones, but
unless otherwise noted, articles are released under a
Creative Commons license. That means they may be
reproduced elsewhere for noncommercial purposes
with attribution, with the exception noted above and
subject to the requirement that any updates to article
content be timely updated in the reproduced
version;..."


Comments Policy 01-05-2005

"The Groklaw site is copyrighted by Pamela Jones, but
unless otherwise noted, articles are released under a
Creative Commons license, attribution, noncommercial
2.0. That means they may be reproduced elsewhere for
noncommercial purposes with attribution, and as an
explanatory note, when it says noncommercial, I mean
that I don't want you using my work for any commercial
purpose, including trying to affect the stock price
for your benefit. I'd like you to update the articles
if I do, so they are accurately representing
Groklaw;..."


So we can see that the #3 question I had regarding the
"requirement" for timely update has been addressed and
is now a request.

I do think though that the new statement's reference
to "the stock price" is somewhat vague. 

The statement below also remains unchanged, and would
appear to still contradict the idea that the CCL is
the entire agreement.  It also seems to diminish the
CCL's statement that you may not republish if the
publishing "is primarily intended for or directed
toward commercial advantage or private monetary
compensation."  The idea of "primarily" is completely
gone.

"I will also remove misleading or incorrect statements
or links thereto made by persons having an interest in
the stock price of any company involved in any of the
cases we cover on Groklaw, and no permission is
granted to any such persons to reproduce the content
of Groklaw."  -- GrokLaw Comments Policy

I think if one goes too far in "explaining" the CCL
rather than letting it stand on its own text you can
quickly cause confusion.  My hope would be that people
seeking to republish CCL-ed material depend on (and
perhaps be directed to) the CCL itself which seems to
have been carefully and clearly written.

nono


--- Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> wrote:

> Statement of Interest: I'm a registered Groklaw
> user.
> 
> On Thursday, January 06, 2005, at 03:19AM, nono2sco
> <nono2sco AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >Now the question that comes to mind is that if
> GrokLaw
> >posts an article that affects the stock price, are
> we
> >saying that a tiny unknown site that exists soley
> to
> >let search engine bots be able to index PJ's CCL-ed
> >articles is going to magnify that effect? 
> Especially
> >when currently the latest article is from
> 12/31/2004?
> 
> It's not the magnitude, it's the intent. If the use
> of the licensed material is primarily directed
> towards financial gain, it's not covered by the
> license. 
> 
> >Since is there is only one person we know mirroring
> >the articles and he happens to have a short
> interest
> >in SCO stock (very carefully disclaimed on his
> >website) doesn't this whole comment seem to be
> >directed at that one person?  
> 
> Not really. They may or may not have been the first
> to raise the issue by their actions, but I can see
> how it could easily come up more often in future.
> 
> >[much snippage]
> 
> As I say, you can't add additional requirements to a
> CC license because it's meant to be the entire
> agreement. 
> 
> *But* having actually read Groklaw's t's & c's, the
> "additional requirement" seems to be simply a
> restating of one of the effects of the NC license:
> that you can't get financial benefit from using the
> licensed work.
> 
> So the "additional requirement" (para 4 sentence 4)
> and Groklaw's clarification of NC (para 4 sentence
> 7) mean that Groklaw's stated restrictions on using
> their content and the restrictions that the NC
> license imposes are not contradictory.
> 
> The *combined* effect of all this is that Groklaw
> aren't doing anything wrong, but it's good that
> they've clarified how their terms and NC's terms
> relate.
> 
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250