Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - [cc-licenses] Comments on List Discussion Responses Document

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [cc-licenses] Comments on List Discussion Responses Document
  • Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:25:00 +0100

Mia -

Some responses to your excellent responses. My apologies for not sending these sooner.

Numbers refer to lines/sections from the PDF.

1.

I am concerned that projects and business models will be based on the two possible interpretations if the license allows both to be drawn, and that this will cause problems far worse than the divergent NC interpretations. Dual distribution should therefore be specifically prohibited or allowed if the current language allows room for interpretation.

3.

There are Free Software operating systems available for installation on most of the systems we have discussed. Developers who are interested in Freedom can use those.

That said, an easily conceivable case is that proprietary software developers might want to use a CC-BY texture image or sound effect in their DRM-covered game. Since BY allows derivatives to be all rights reserved, if the game is a derivative DRM should be allowed in this instance. I believe that this is true of any *derivatives* of BY work, but see 10 below.

It would be very bad if Debian decided that BY is 'Free' by their definition but that BY-SA is not.

8.

PSPs can play non-DRM music and video quite happily and have a built-in web browser that can read HTML and other formats for textual and graphical work. PSP users are therefore not at the mercy of their vendor's DRM for "software" other than binary executable computer programs and so CC licenses are not a restriction for them.

9.

Source code should not be under a CC license. If the code is GPL this is a breach of the license (by virtue of the privacy not the DRM), if it's BSD it is not.

10.

All the CC licenses allow at least noncommercial copying of untransformed works. DRM can affect a recipient's ability to do this. It may therefore be important to differentiate between original and derivative works when discussing whether DRM can be applied to non-SA work.

11.

If I receive the DRM (or non-DRM) version and decide later to re-distribute it but cannot find the other version (let's say the company has folded or the artist has faded into obscurity), how can I re-distribute the work?

- If I have to provide a non-DRM version but cannot, this is going to be a problem.

- If I can just redistribute the DRM version, this will be a problem much sooner.

16.

Identifying changes is fair on the original author and may help with Moral Rights issues around mis-attribution of work. The labeling of changes is a permitted requirement under the DFSG IIRC. It is touched on by the FDL's requirement that derivative works have different titles. And the GPL version 3 drafts allow identifying modified versions as an additional requirement.

21.

The interaction of moral rights with Free licenses is an untried area as far as I know, and will be unavoidable in jurisdictions where you cannot waive your moral rights (such as Germany). So this clause levels the playing field for moral rights under CC licenses internationally, avoiding any expoits that might be possible by moving work from strong moral rights jurisdictions to weak moral rights jurisdictions.

22.

A "no endorsement" clause also answers one of the BBC Creative Archive's concerns, their CC-incompatible license based on NC-SA was drafted in part to include one. This change is therefore useful for those of us lobbying the Creative Archive to use a Creative Commons license.

Non-endorsement is also included in the FDL with its requirement of the removal of endorsement sections in derivative works, and in the GPL 3 drafts as a permitted license extension.

27.

I thought the Japanese license enumerated all (or at least many) legally conceivable transformations and modifications to simulate the concept of "derivation".

28.

This was an unintentionally silly question on my part. Sorry about that.

29.

This being the case should this section also refer to cinematographic and phonographic works to make it clear that derivation or copying between different media is explicitly permitted (by those licenses that do allow this)? Or does this section absolutely only refer to rights over literary and artistic works?

30/31.

I forgot about the other treaties. Sorry about that.

33.

After writing the comment that you address here I actually spoke to a local Free Culture group that includes circus skills in its workshops.

35.

My comment was not made due to an aversion to US phraseology, and I personally much prefer Fair Use to Fair Dealing. It would just be convenient for those of us in Fair Dealing jurisdictions to have Fair Dealing explicitly mentioned. As with a clause saying "you can only license work that you hold the rights to" it would be legally redundant but socially useful.

42.

It is a shame that it is not possible to allow DRM technology but not DRM law in this way.

43.

As Andres has pointed out this does not seem to have the effect claimed and is indeed an artifact of Scottish law.

- Rob.



  • [cc-licenses] Comments on List Discussion Responses Document, Rob Myers, 10/06/2006

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page