Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Dj Everette <djeverette AT gmail.com>]

We must be specific and include the title otherwise too muddy to trace if needed.

On Oct 1, 2012 7:44 AM, "jonathon" <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community