Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT prodromou.name>]

On Tue, 2006-14-11 at 15:58 +0100, Peter Brink wrote:
> It's the legal code that constitutes the contract (licence, deal or 
> whatever you want to call it), not the deed. If there's is a direct 
> difference btw the deed and the code, the code takes precedence. 

Yes, but if that's the case, then the Deed isn't doing a very good job.
What would the point of the Deed be, if it's directly contradicting the
license text?

I think that there may be a better way to summarize the attribution
requirements. Although "in the manner specified by the author or
licensor" is technically correct, it should probably be made more clear
that the author or licensor does not have total discretion in specifying
the manner of attribution.*

It's also worth noting that the deed text is simply wrong in other
languages. Here's the Canadian French:

        Paternité. Vous devez citer le nom de l'auteur original.

"You must cite the name of the original author." That's not true; the
author may choose another party's name for the credits. Also, there are
several other important attribution requirements that aren't pointed
out; citing the name of the author is necessary but insufficient.

What about this language? I think it sums up the attribution
requirements succinctly.

        Attribution. You must credit the author or organization by name;
        note the title of the work; and give the URI and/or text of any
        copyright notices. If you change the work, you must note the
        changes.

The last sentence would be left off, of course, for the ND licenses.

~Evan

* Well, technically, they _do_ have total discretion, but they agree to
certain bounds by using the CCPL.

-- 
Evan Prodromou <evan AT prodromou.name>