Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 AT gmail.com>]

On 29/09/12 14:02, Kat Walsh wrote:
> 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.)
> 
> This appears in several other free licenses, and helps distinguish the
> contributions of each authors or group of authors. For example, a
> translation might bear the note "translated into Spanish by X".
> However, we also see it potentially presents problems in complying.
> 
> There are a few specific questions we'd really like to hear answers to:
> 
> 1. What existing uses of the licenses would this break or make
> extremely difficult, and how could it be improved?
> 2. What kind of description should be required: should a verbal
> description be required, or is the ability to see and compare the
> changes enough?

I don't see this as being practical. If I'm working on remixing an
artistic work am I expected to record every change I make? eg. changed
colour levels, applied Gaussian blur, etc.

That would become impractical, let along being ambiguous in the actual
requirement ie. which level of detail describing changes is enough for
compliance: "edited the original image", "applied Gaussian blur",
"applied Gaussian blur with settings of omega=0.246?

I think that simply providing a reference to the original work(s) your
work is derived from will allow the consumer to compare both works
themselves and observe what has changed for themselves.

> 3. Is this desirable to put in the license at all, or should it simply
> be a best practice?

> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful attention and input.
> 
> -Kat
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature