Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Thursday 04 October 2012 21:37:39 Dj Everette wrote:
> We must be specific and include the title otherwise too muddy to trace if
> needed.

Surely all copyrighted works do not have titles so do you mean that we must 
include the title where the work has a title?

drew
>
> 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