Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Engel Nyst <engel.nyst AT gmail.com>]

On 09/15/2013 07:47 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Section 3(a)(3) of CC-by-nc-sa-v4.0draft4 states:
>
> [...]
> >       3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the
> >          information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) if reasonably
> >          practicable.
> [...]
>
> where information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) is basically
> the names of the authors and others designated to receive attribution,
> copyright notices, disclaimers, and a URI.
>
> I understand that this clause is planned for all CC-v4.0 licenses.
>
> Personally, I still believe this requirement fails to meet
> the Debian Free Software Guidelines.  See my previous message [1]
> about this same issue in draft2.
>
> [1] https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2012-August/007118.html
>
> I once again recommend to entirely drop this clause from CC-v4.0
> licenses, or, at least, to amend it so that it says:
>
> |  3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any inaccurate
> |     or misleading information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) if
> |     reasonably practicable.
>
> I really hope this suggestion may be implemented in the final
> text of CC-v4.0 licenses.

FWIW, I sympathize with the belief it shouldn't be in the license. But 
perhaps it's the lesser of two evils.

The legal framework outlined in the Berne convention, in my reading, 
makes moral rights impossible to waive/license.[1]
That may make a "creative commons" impossible, because it affects its 
perpetual and irrevocable traits. This draft explains it better than I 
could: [2]. Please note the discussion around withdrawal.

The problem is not if I, a name on the internet, may think that if it's 
merely accurate then does not and should not be perceived as affecting 
reputation. The problem is that we're working within a framework that 
gives the author the right to make that determination *later* and I have 
no idea if courts may or may not agree. The right to withdraw the work 
later contradicts any open licensing.

A free license must be irrevocable. Within such constraints, my point is 
perhaps it's better to let a way ("if reasonably practicable") for the 
author to withdraw their *name* - and *not the work*.

[1] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726
[2] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2159697