Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:02:38 -0700 Kat Walsh wrote:

[...]
> Removing title of work:
> 
> The title of the work is no longer a requirement for proper
> attribution, though it is encouraged that licensees preserve it if it
> is given.
[...]

This change goes in the direction of more flexibility in compliance.
I think it's good to relax attribution requirements in this way.

> "You may satisfy the conditions [..] in any reasonable manner based on
> the medium, means, and context":
> 
> This is a new aspect, expecially "context". If there is a customary
> form of attribution for the kind of use you are making of a work, you
> should use it
[...]

Again, more flexibility is good, in my opinion.

> Shortcuts:
> 
[...]
> proper attribution may be given by
> providing a URI that contains all of the required attribution
> information.
[...]

This may be useful in some cases.

> "indicate where the Licensed Material may be accessed, and include a
> URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material if reasonably practicable":
> 
> One choice made in this draft was to keep the requirement that a
> source be given for accessing the work, but not necessarily the
> original link that the licensor gave.
> 
> There are a few reasons for this.
[...]

I agree that this flexibility is important, for the very reasons that
you described.


> 
> Copyright notices:
> 
> One open question is whether to preserve copyright notices.

I think that preserving copyright notices should be required, in order
to help bringing clarity on who are the copyright holders for the work.

[...]
> however, one of the motivators for eliminating it as a requirement
> is that some licensors have used this requirement to insert additional terms
> in the notice that are inconsistent with the license,

I think that this is an abuse and that those additional terms cannot be
considered as part of the copyright notices.
They are part of the permission notice, not of the copyright notices,
which, as far as I know, are just lines of the form

  Copyright © <year(s)> <copyright_holder(s)>

Hence, I am under the impression that the requirement to preserve
copyright notices could not, in itself, be used to require preservation
of any additional terms...

[...]
> Identifying changes to the work:
> 
> This one does not appear in 4.0d2--it is a new suggestion in the
> current internal draft, and something we'd like to hear community
> opinion on: "if You Share Adapted Material, You must indicate the
> Licensed Material was used and describe the changes made." (This would
> also be "reasonable to the medium, means, and context", as the other
> attribution information would be.)

I think that this should be *much* narrower, or otherwise compliance
would become a nightmare!

Please compare with GNU GPL v2, clause 2a:

|  a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
|  stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

Please also compare with the even clearer GNU GPL v3, clause 5a:

|  a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
|  it, and giving a relevant date.

It is worth noticing that they require to state that changes were made
and one date, but *not* to describe the each change in detail!

> 
> This appears in several other free licenses,

Not in the overreaching form that you presented (requiring a
description of each change), I would say...

[...]
> There are a few specific questions we'd really like to hear answers to:
[...]
> 3. Is this desirable to put in the license at all, or should it simply
> be a best practice?

I strongly recommend to leave it as a best practice guideline, without
turning it into a license requirement.

> Thanks for your thoughtful attention and input.

You're welcome.

As far as Attribution is concerned, please do not forget my other
suggestions:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2012-August/007109.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2012-August/007118.html

Bye.

-- 
 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: pgpAqy3qLnXJp.pgp
Description: PGP signature