Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Isabelle Vodjdani <vodjdani.isabelle AT numericable.fr>]

Oups! sorry for the copy-paste dictionnary link, my english is so awfull 
that I have to check out a lot of words in a dictionnary.
I re-send the mail without the odd disturbing link
Isabelle

Isabelle Vodjdani a écrit :

> Daniel Carrera a écrit :
>
>  
>
> > Hello Isabelle,
> >
> >
> >    
> Hello Daniel,
>
>  
>
> > I read the FAL, but I am not a lawyer.
> >
> >    
> Nither am I !
>
> Let me first precise that my answer below, is personnal (though indebted 
> to many talks with copyleft_attitude's actors), while the summary of the 
> meeting I have previously posted in the begenning of this thread was the 
> result of a collective work (collective in the meaning of the french 
> law, when different contributions are not distinguishable).
>
>  
>
> > So I need some help understanding 
> > it. It wasn't very clear to me what the FAL says. Does the FAL require 
> > that modifications to the work be FAL? I couldn't find that on the license.
> >
> >
> >    
> Yes, indeed! don't be afraid of reading the whole FAL's legal code. It's 
> a quite short text that leaves enough room in the brain to let one think 
> about it's meaning.
>
> in the FAL you can read this :
> .
>
>  
>
> > 2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY
> >
> > You have the right to modify the copies of the originals (original and 
> > subsequent), partially or otherwise, respecting the conditions set out 
> > in article 2.2 , in the event of distribution (or representation) of 
> > the modified copy. The author of the original may, if he wishes, give 
> > you the right to modify the original under the same conditions as the 
> > copies
> >    
>
> So, it's clear that the conditions that you have to respect are 
> specified just above "in the article 2.2" :
>
>  
>
> > 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)
> >
> > You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, 
> > whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if 
> > you observe all the following conditions:
> > - attach this license, in its entirety, to the copies or indicate 
> > precisely where the license can be found,
> > - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
> > - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the 
> > originals (original and subsequent). The author of the original may, 
> > if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast/distribute the original 
> > under the same conditions as the copies.
> >
> >    
> I hope you get it now.
>
>  
>
> > Can you compare the FAL with the BY-SA? 
> >
> >    
> This is the subjet of the first workshop and it's a heavy task we have 
> to conduct. I have to confess that we tried to do it several times with 
> Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, but each time, the job have been leaved 
> uncomplete.  Nevertheless, these incomplete results have been useful for 
> the drafting of the french  cc adaptation. But now it's time to wonder 
> why is it so hard to carry out such a work in a more complete way ?
> After several attempts, I arrived at the conclusion that though pursuing 
> the same goal on the whole, the wording method of the two licenses are 
> so heterogeneous that one can hardly get through a precise comparison
>
>  
>
> > Can you give us an example of 
> > something that would be allowed under one license but not the other?
> >
> >
> >    
> Yes, in spite of these difficulties, it's possible to underline some 
> points that arise questions. For example I can mention that :
>
> - The FAL recognises a distinction between the original and the copy. 
> With respect to the moral right, and the requirement for the 
> availability of the original work (source) for other uses, only the 
> copies of a work are allowed to be modified. The modification of an 
> original (let's say a non digital and autographic handwork, a painting 
> for example) requires a special authorisation of the originator. Now, if 
> you look on the other hand, at the CC legal code, you don't find such a 
> distinction; therefore one can understand that the CC licenses allows modifications on original 
> autographic works, since the definition of the "work" seems to include 
> any kind of medium.
>
> - At the end of 4.a of CC licenses there is a paragraph that let me 
> interrogative about the consequences of a partially non attribution 
> term. Indeed, the IP allows an author to publish his work anonymously 
> and to bring afterwards the proof of his authorship (in which case we 
> have a clearly time sequenced sheme), the partially non attribution term 
> leaves the possibility of some generations of attributed derivative 
> works, and in the same time, other generations of non-attribuded 
> derivative works that found their starting point in the context of some 
> collective work. The case is so complicated that I even don't know 
> whether it has to determine or not a non compatibility indication.
>
> These were two examples, but we have to invistigate more precisely to 
> set up a list of all the possible problems in order to resolve the more 
> significant differences between the two licenses.
>
>  
>
> >    
> >
> > > The aim is to be allowed to mix together some works offered under the CC 
> > > by-sa with other works offered under the FAL, and then, to put the 
> > > resulting derivative work under one of these two licences.
> > >   
> > >
> > >      
> > Assuming that BY-SA and FAL are very similar, it would be good to be 
> > able to take BY-SA work and make it FAL and take FAL work and make it BY-SA.
> >
> >
> >
> >    
> Shure! it would be a good thing for everyone. This is what we try to 
> reach, but if both part don't realy will it, it becomes impossible to 
> overcome the numerous problems.
> I suppose that if  Melanie Dulong de Rosnay asked us to study such a 
> possibility, it's because she observed such a will about cc by+sa users, 
> and of course, a lot of FAL users will the same thing.
>
>  
>
> >    
> >
> > > Actually, there are two obstacles to the compatibility :
> > >
> > > 1- the Free Art License dosen't allow one to mix a work ruled by another 
> > > License with a work ruled by the FAL (article 7).
> > >   
> > >
> > >      
> > Could this change in the future?
> >
> >
> >    
> Yes, we are seriousely thinking and working about it. Such a term wasn't 
> possible 5 years ago, but now that a few number of free licenses are 
> well known and adopted by some significant communities of users, we can 
> concretely study the conditions and terms of an additional article which 
> would allow us to set up a list of compatible licenses.
>
>  
>
> >    
> >
> > > 2- The CC by-sa dosen't fit into the criteria of freedom as conceived by 
> > > the Free Art License :
> > >
> > > The main problems pointed out are :
> > > # the fact that the drafting of CC licenses is quite confuse and can 
> > > generate some conflictual interpretations
> > > # the compatibility between the several national adaptations of CC 
> > > licenses means that a compatibility between the FAL and the French CC 
> > > by-sa would mean, as well, a compatibility between the FAL and other 
> > > national adaptations whose significations and legal consequences are not 
> > > clear for us.
> > >   
> > >
> > >      
> > I don't understand how those two items relate to freedom. You find the 
> > CC licenses confusing and are concerned about the national adaptations. 
> > Those are more of practical considerations than an issue of freedom.
> >
> >
> >    
> Well, the practical considerations are important too, otherwise freedom 
> reminds only a nice wish.
> The first item is deeply related to our conception of freedom.
> The second consideration is much more law-technichal but not less important.
>
> Please excuse me if don't have the time to develope more explanations. 
> Maybe there will be other opportunities to do it some day.
> For the moment, just think about it...
>
>
>  
>
> >    
> >
> > > We thus came to the conclusion that the compatibility between the two 
> > > licenses required that the CC by-sa should adopt the terms of the FAL.
> > >   
> > >
> > >      
> > It may be good to explain what those are.
> >
> > * What does the FAL allow that is prohobited by the BY-SA?
> > * What does the FAL prohibit that is allowed by the BY-SA?
> >
> >
> >
> >    
> see above
>
>  
>
> > > the FAL ... simplicity of its wording
> > >   
> > >
> > >      
> > When I read the FAL I found it confusing. In particular, I couldn't 
> > understand the conditions under which I am allowed to modify the work 
> > (section 2.3). It was obscure to me.
> >
> >
> >    
> see above
>
> Isabelle
>
>  
>
> > Best,
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> >    
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>
>