Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Disclaimers for works of opinion as an incentive to free licensing

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Disclaimers for works of opinion as an incentive to free licensing
  • Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 17:49:04 +0200

On 08.05.2012 07:48, Ben Finney wrote:
> As for Creative Commons, the Attribution licenses allow the copyright
> holder to constrain redistributors of the work that they “must not
> distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to
> the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or
> reputation.” <URL:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode>
>
> So those who don't want their published opinions to be misrepresented
> already have what they need, with the full force of copyright law if
> they wish. Surely that should suffice for what is being requested here?

Of course it does!

The concern raised here is that the whole section you quote a portion
of is *purged* from the draft 4.0d1, and an (IMHO) overreaching
waiver of moral rights is inserted in its place.

To make my position clear.

I think the waiver that is used in the CCPL draft 4.0d1 won't hold
up in court in certain jurisdictions, and that having it in the public
license will be confusing and misleading the public in these
jurisdictions.

I would be happy with either of these two solutions:

#1) The (again IMHO) balanced text about moral rights used in CCPL 3.0
is also used in CCPL 4.0; or:

#2) The license only make the following statement about moral rights:
"The author's moral rights shall not be affected by this license."

Solution #1 has been tested with CCPL 3.0 and seems to work well.
It is essentially a restatement of the Berne Convention, but some
people seem to dislike it, and has asked for its removal from
the CCPL 4.0 draft (which the CC has done).

Solution #2 does *exactly* the same thing to moral rights in the
CCPL as most free software licenses does by default. It leaves
these rights unaffected by the license, which means that the default
regulation of moral rights (which just happens to be the Berne
Convention) kicks in.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
"Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page