cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden
- From: Kim Tucker <kctucker AT gmail.com>
- To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:49:50 +0200
Kat:
Yes, but with that approach one still has to check. An emblem
indicating CC SA (or Libre Puro) would mean the author/artist etc.
could just go ahead and mix and share without having to check (unless
they have some contextual reason to).
Anthony:
The other licenses have progressed from 1.0 through 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and
now we are working on 4.0.
In each successive version the wording has been refined adding to the
robustness and clarity of each licence. Updating SA 1.0 to SA 4.0
would align it with the other licences in these respects.
Comparing the section "4. Restrictions" in SA 1.0 and BY-SA 3.0
suggests areas for revision of CC SA 1.0:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/legalcode
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
and then look at the draft of CC BY-SA 4.0:
http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/drafts/by-sa_4.0d3.html
to infer other changes for CC SA 4.0.
CC SA 1.0 certainly has some weaknesses now and updating it would be
important if the Creative Commons were to bring it out of retirement.
The Libre Puro Licence is similar in the sense that it too does not
require attribution and is also copyleft. CC SA 1.0 is the closest CC
license to LPL. Having a CC SA 4.0 would reduce the need for the LPL.
If the CC will not un-retire SA 1.0 and produce a SA 4.0, it might be
easier to debug and launch the LPL.
Drew:
Correct. Assuming that "non-attribution propagation" is not
disallowing attribution but making it optional.
The Libre Puro Licence (LPL) is more flexible in that LPL-licensed
resources may be incorporated/mixed into resources licensed CC BY-SA
(or other licences similar in intent) with the result being CC BY-SA.
"Similar in intent" in this case means a copyleft license perpetuating
all the of the core freedoms described in various places:
http://wikieducator.org/Libre_knowledge#Libre_Knowledge_Definition
http://freedomdefined.org/Libre
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Kim
On 30 April 2013 19:38, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 April 2013 12:58:02 Kat Walsh wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Kim Tucker <kctucker AT gmail.com> wrote:
>> > imo, if a free culture is what we want to achieve, there is a missing
>> > license: SA 4.0 - an update of
>> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/ which was retired because
>> > less than 2% of the community wanted it. Who knows what might have
>> > happened if it had not been retired?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > My main point is that the burden of attribution should be minimised to
>> > expedite a free culture. Make it as simple as possible.
>>
>> One note that I'd like to point out: it is always possible to release your
>> own work under a CC license without requiring attribution, if you would
>> like to do so. You may either grant others that permission on top of the
>> existing license, or you may simply not provide attribution information
>> (which means that those who want to share the work are not obligated to
>> give attribution).
>
> Right but that does not require non-attribution propogation as a plain SA
> would. Correct?
>>
>> -Kat
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden,
Kim Tucker, 05/02/2013
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden,
drew Roberts, 05/02/2013
- Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden, Kim Tucker, 05/03/2013
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden,
Anthony, 05/02/2013
- Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden, Anthony, 05/02/2013
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Attribution: accurate credit should not be forbidden,
drew Roberts, 05/02/2013
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.