Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] New Generic and ports

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen AT iki.fi>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] New Generic and ports
  • Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:15:04 +0300

On Oct 8, 2006, at 02:34, Andres Guadamuz wrote:

Henri Sivonen wrote:
Moreover, if you don't accept the license, you don't get the rights,
so a prospective licensee has an incentive to figure it out.

Why assume this?

I am observing that Free Software licenses only grant you rights if you accept the license.

If there is an enthusiastic group of people who have
bothered to translate the licence for you, and to make sure that it is
compatible with your local legislation, why not use it?

Because having subtly different versions creates license proliferation.

Why make things more difficult when it can be easier?

I see multiple versions as more difficult.

It seems just wrong to me that even the U.S., England & Wales, Scotland, Canada and Australia have distinct licenses although they share a language *and* a legal tradition.

Moreover, if I read those licenses and Finnish licenses and Swedish licenses and French licenses and Canadian French licenses, I still wouldn't know what e.g. the Dutch licenses say.

The official party line has been that they are not mere translations
but ports.
Can you please cite evidence that this is official party line?

http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/

AFAIK,
ports are also translations (where required). IMHO, this is extremely
important to the stated goals of the movement.

Do you mean CC by "movement"? What are the stated goals other than exploring the "Some Rights Reserved" spectrum (without any baseline definition like the Free Software Definition)?

Yet, even people close to CC tend to think of them as mere
translations.
Again, can you provide evidence for this?

Your next paragraph, for instance, suggests that you can read them as translations.

Of course, in practice people will treat them as
translations. If there's a language-independent photo licensed under,
say, a Dutch CC license, most people around the world are going to
read the Dutch license but a license in some other language.


The general principles are similar in all ports, so it is fine to look
at a Chinese, English, Spanish, French or Portuguese version of the same
licence in order to understand what the terms and conditions are. I will
keep repeating this, but not everybody in the world speaks English
fluently. As I mentioned in my previous post, local courts can use their
local licence for interpretation even if the creator has used the
Generic English licence.

What authorizes courts to apply a local license instead of the one the licensor used in cases of verbatim copying (where the jurisdiction change clause on derivative works does not apply)? What would happen if CC did not provide ports? E.g. what happens with the Sampling license?

So does CC believe that people in country X can't use works licensed
under a license from country Y, because the license from country Y
doesn't follow the conventions of X?

These are not "conventions". This is law. A Scottish licence may not be
a contract in the United States, and an American licence may not be a
valid in Europe. This has nothing to do with CC's ideas, it is a fact of
International Private Law.

Does CC believe that the approach that FSF has taken with GPLv3, GFDLv2 and GSFDL is legally flawed? (Those licenses attempt to take into account issues from various jurisdictions in the original without having a separate license for each jurisdiction. Translations are allowed, but English is the prevailing governing language if the translations disagree.)

If CC believes that the approach FSF has taken is flawed, what's the point of the "New Generic" license (which is distinct from the U.S. license)?

If CC believes that the approach FSF has taken is not flawed, doesn't it follow that CC is creating complexity for no good reason?

If I write in
English, which I do a lot, using a Finnish-language license makes no
sense. (Due to the way the world works, this is not symmetric and an
English-language license for Finnish-language content is still
practical.)

Why does it not make sense to use the Finnish licence?

Because the population in the world that can verify what it says in minuscule compared to the population that could verify what an English-language license says.

You cannot see what a Finnish license says by reading a Canadian, U.S., Scottish, English & Welsh or Australian license, because even those five are different among themselves!

Even if you write
in English, where would you expect to litigate if you were in a dispute
over the licence?

I prefer not to litigate, but if I was in a situation where I had to litigate, I'd prefer to do it in Helsinki, Finland. It does not follow that the license could not be written in the English language.

Why can't the licenses contain a blanket waiver for what is waivable
and that CC doesn't want specifically to retain? What is not waivable
cannot be waived anyway.

If only it were that easy... During the last iCommons summit I believe
that we counted five different ways in which present jurisdictions
handled moral rights and waivers, most of them incompatible with each
other. I don't know why complicate an already complex licence with five
possible eventualities regarding moral rights, when there are people
willing to prot the licence to fulfil the local treatment of moral rights.

If they are incompatible, how can I know what I am dealing with by reading the licenses for other jurisdictions like you suggested above? If they are incompatible, how can the cross-jurisdiction license change clause of CC-by-sa work?

Can't the Generic version be in user-friendly language? Does the U.S.
*require* unfriendly language to be used?

Why should it when only the UK requires user-friendly language?

Because user-friendly language seems to be a generally good idea unless it is specifically prohibited somewhere.

(have you ever read the GPL?).

Yes. Moreover, I have read all the authoritative versions of GPLv2-- the only one.

Besides drafting, consumer contracts are subject to stringent
unfair terms rules in Europe, so our warranty waivers have to be worded
differently than what you will find in American licences.

Would following the stringent European rules in the U.S. be wrong?

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen AT iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page