Development of Creative Commons licenses

[jonathon <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>]

On 09/29/2012 04:02 AM, 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.

Without the title, how is one to know which content by the specific 
content creator is meant?

By way of example, suppose I do a derivative of Da Vinci's _The Last 
Support_ as a 3D sculpture. Except instead of labelling it as such, I 
simply say: "Derived from a study by Da Vinci".

> "You may satisfy the conditions [..] in any reasonable manner based on
> the medium, means, and context":

> This is a new aspect, expecially "context".

"Context" is going to be misunderstood by those that are not familiar 
with the norms of the format they are using.

> flexibility and ease of compliance--proper attribution may be given by
 providing a URI that contains all of the required attribution information.

Is as much as the half life of the typical webpage is less than 18 
months, by allowing a URI, rather than requiring it to be included in 
the content, means that both the license terms and conditions will be 
for all practical purposes, _All Rights Reserved_, within four years of 
the release of the content.  (Try proving that the license data on the 
page that one accessed is identical to the license data that the 
original creator used.)

It also makes due diligence much harder. As it is, there are half a 
dozen sites, such as Scribus, that, as a matter of course, relicense
ARR content, and CC-BY-NC content to CC-BY, or PD.

> 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.)

Whilst I appreciate the thought behind this requirement, adhering to it 
is a nightmare, unless one uses something like subversion to distribute 
the content.

> 1. What existing uses of the licenses would this break or make
 extremely difficult, and how could it be improved?

ODF_Authors has a policy of identifying the general changes to 
documentation they produce for OpenOffice.org, LibreOffice, NeoOfice, 
and Apache Open Office that they create. Sometimes it is as short as 
"updated for LO 3.6". Other times the description is much more detailed.

> 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?

Identify the general changes, but not require each and every specific 
change to be documented within the content

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

Maybe "Best Practice".

jonathon