Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>]

Hello Isabelle,

> > I read the FAL, but I am not a lawyer.
>
> Nither am I !

:-)

> Yes, indeed! don't be afraid of reading the whole FAL's legal code.

I'm not. I always read the full legal code of the licenses I use :)

> > 2.3 FREEDOM TO MODIFY
[snip]
> So, it's clear that the conditions that you have to respect are 
> specified just above "in the article 2.2" :

I see...

> > 2.2 FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE, TO INTERPRET (OR OF REPRESENTATION)
[snip]
> > - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access the 
> > originals (original and subsequent).

I think this is a requirement that's not in the Creative Commons. So 
this would be a potential incompatibility.

> > 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. 
> ... only the copies of a work are allowed to be modified.

I see. So it looks like the FAL was written with non-digital artwork in 
mind. Like, say you take a photograph and make it FAL. I can use a 
photocopy of your photograph and modify that copy. But I can't modify 
the origina.

Alright, fair enough. But how would this affect digital work? How do you 
distinguish between "original" and "copy"? When you send me a photograph 
by email, your computer makes a copy and sends it to me. When I save it, 
my computer makes another copy. When you open the photograph, your 
computer makes a copy and puts it in RAM.

In the digital world, everything is a copy.

How would the FAL deal with a digital work? (this is my primary area of 
interest).

At the same time, I can see how the origial vs copy distinction is 
important for a physical object. It may be difficult to write a license 
that can reasonably apply to both digital and physical art. But I think 
it's good to try (consider, for example, that I take a digital picture 
and print it, now it's physical; or I see a physical work of art and 
take a digital picture of it).

> - 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.

That does sound complicated.

> > > 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.

That sounds great.

> 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.

The first item is that you find the CC licenses confusing. I don't 
understand how that is about freedom. Note, I'm not saying that this 
item is not important. I know it's important that we understand the 
licenses we use.

In any event, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. 
I feel I understand the FAL much better now.

From my current understanding, I think I would use the FAL for physical 
works and the BY-SA for digital works. But that's just an opinion.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
     /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
    /\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/  No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
   \/_/   However, a significant number of electrons were
   /      were severely inconvenienced.