Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:35:54 +0200 Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

> On 05.04.2012 19:50, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Section 3(a)(1) of CC-by-nc-sa-v4.0draft1 includes the following part:
> > 
> > [...]
> >>     You must, to the extent reasonably practicable, remove the
> >>     information specified in (i) – (iii) above if requested by
> >>     Licensor.
> > [...]
[...]
> > I recommend that this clause be dropped entirely from CC-v4.0
> > licenses
> 
> I too think this is a very unfortunate clause.
> 
> However, if I've understand its rationale, this clause is put in
> there as a sort of "quick fix" because there has never (before)
> been a clause in the license that deals properly with what is
> known as "moral rights" (Europe) or "author's rights" (USA).

Well, I think it's a wrong fix...

[...]
> Obviously, if some  political or religious group that I really
> despise started to distribute copies of one of my works to promote their
> nefarious cause, I want to be able to tell them to stop
> doing it!

I cannot understand this: you want a license (e.g. CC-by or CC-by-sa)
that gives anyone the permission to redistribute your work, but then
you want to have the possibility to arbitrarily prevent someone from
doing so, just because you dislike that someone?!?

Which harm is being done to your reputation by the simple fact that
your work is being distributed by a group you despise?

Do they claim you endorse them?
I think they cannot, as the license does not allow them to do so and
you sure haven't given them any separate permission to do so. 
Hence, in case they claim endorsement from you, I think you can already
sue them and have them stop claiming an endorsement they do not have.

Otherwise, how is your reputation being hurt?
Just because they say they like your work?!?
I think no author can prevent someone from publicly expressing
appreciation for his/her work! At least, I hope this holds for most or
all jurisdictions...

> 
> And I can't really see *why* a CC licenses should not grant me the
> right to revoke a license if I think a license-taker is hurting
> my honour or  reputation,

I disagree: I think that a Free license cannot be revokable at will.

[...]
> I therefore propose that the clause Francesco Poli refers to
> (where an author can forbid a specific license-taker to use accurate
> credit) in removed from the draft, and *at the same time* the
> following paragraph is added to section 5:
> 
>    If the Licensor finds Your use or adaption of the Licensed Work to
>    be prejudicial to his honour or reputation, he can serve you a
>    notice terminating this License.  In that case, You must get
>    express approval from Licensor if you seek new rights to use the
>    Licensed Work under this Public License.

I strongly oppose to this proposal.
To me, it looks even worse than the clause I was discussing.

[...]
> I think this amendment shall strengthen the license and make it
> more appealing to creators.

My primary concern is not making licenses more appealing to authors.
First of all, a license should make a work Free; after that, it may
well be appealing to potential adopters (that is to say, authors), as
long as the important freedoms granted to the recipients of the work
are not taken away.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgp3_0DnRwOKv.pgp
Description: PGP signature