Creative Commons in the South Caucasus

[Movses Hakobyan <movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com>]

Dear Diane,
Thanks a lot for your reply, below are the answers to your questions.


On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 16:23, Diane Peters <diane AT creativecommons.org>wrote:

> Dear Movses,
> Our apologies for being late to reply, and thank you for your email of a
> few hours ago.
>
> We took the extra time to do another, thorough review of the licenses and
> discuss internally a few comments we had.  We've tried to aggregate all of
> those below, for ease of reference.
>
> First, the No Derivatives solution you propose seems fine - specifically,
> to change the term "derivative work" to "transformations of works".  When
> you implement this, please be very careful in the license grant in terms of
> "collections."
>
> Second, regarding the definition of "Law" and the use of that throughout in
> the remainder of the license text, we believe that should be fine.  Please
> be sure that the parenthetical "(hereinafter referred to as LAW)" is placed
> AFTER the "and/or other applicable law" so the definition captures both
> Armenian law and other applicable law.
>
> Third, the jurisdiction clause is fine as you've prepared it.
>
> Finally, a couple of notes that came up on a harder review:
>
> (i)  In the definition of Licensor in the English, you use "Rights to Use"
> as though it's a defined term, but there is no definition anywhere.  Is that
> intentional, and is it in the Armenian also?
>
That is according to the same Law- "Article 13. Economic Rights of the
Author: The author has an exclusive *right to use *his work in any mode and
form, as well as to authorize or prohibit third persons to use his work,
particularly;" ........... list of those rights.

> (ii)  Similarly, the "Non-economic" rights language in 4a is in quotations,
> is there a reason for that?
>
No, that is not intentionally, I will correct that in EN version, however as
I checked this wording appeared in quotations only in BY-NC-ND (4e). In
Armenian one there are no quotations.

>
> (iii)  Regarding Section 5 warranties, I just want to be sure that I
> understand that this clause has been drafted as narrowly as possible.  I
> realize also that you have been through this with Catharina and Michelle,
> but I just want to be sure I understand also.  In the retranslation and
> explanation, you indicate:
>
> *[In fact, exclusion of implied warranties is discordant to the principle
> of bona fide attitude of*
>
> *parties to the contract. However, it makes reservation on application of
> this clause therefore it *has been omitted in the text.]
>
> By this, I am assuming that all of the warranties you have included are
> required to be included in order for the agreement to be enforceable and
> there is no narrower set of warranties that would suffice?  We do see that
> some jurisdictions require inclusion of warranties, but I just want to
> double check.  Thanks in advance for helping me fully understand this.
>
Diane, You are right, such requirement is coming from Civil Code to make
contract enforceable and valid. At that time  we with Catharina tried to
make it softer and finally came to the current solution.
Thank you once again for guidance, it was really pleasure to collaborate
with CCi team of experts. If there would be other points for clarification I
am open to discuss them.
Movses

>
> I believe that's everything that Catharina, Michelle and I had picked up on
> to confirm with you. We are excited about helping you draw this to a quick
> close prior to suspension of work on the licenses!
>
> Best regards,
> Diane
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Movses Hakobyan <
> movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear friends,
>> In case you have not got the letter below I am resending that in
>> expectation of your advice and comments.
>> Thank you
>> Movses
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 18:02, Movses Hakobyan 
>> <movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Catharina, Diane and all,
>>>
>>> Following the four Licenses communicated to you, now I am trying to
>>> settle Licenses with ND element with your support. So, below is the 
>>> extract
>>> from the Law on Copyright (definitions part) FYI then my suggestions for
>>> Armenian versions:
>>>
>>> Article 3 *. Subject Matters of Copyright  (Non-official translation)*
>>> k) *derivative works*, particularly:
>>>
>>> i translations, adaptations of works, changes, arrangements and
>>> rearrangements, stage versions, audiovisual *adaptations** *and other
>>> transformations of works in the scientific, literary and art domain,
>>> which are in compliance with paragraph (1) of this Article;
>>>
>>> ii *collections of works* (encyclopedias, anthologies), databases and
>>> other composite works, which are, by the reason of the selection and
>>> (or) arrangement of their contents, results of a creative work;
>>> So, in view that master licenses shall be in Armenian what I am proposing
>>> is to change "derivative work" term (also appeared in the title) with 
>>> "transformations
>>> of works" in Armenian language licenses that is the only correct way, as
>>> for me, to be both legally and linguistically valid.
>>>
>>> Purpose of such change is to separate adaptations from collections in
>>> Licenses with NoDeriv element in order to make them both enforceable and
>>> compatible with requirements of Law.
>>>
>>> Consequently, in the light of abovementioned, to make all licenses
>>> maximally harmonized, same changes (linguistic part) are proposed to be
>>> introduced appropriately in other Licenses too (Armenian versions).
>>>
>>> Could you please let me know your point of view on this as soon as
>>> possible, we are on the way of production of promotional documents and two
>>> films that is why corrected definition terms are of very importance. Thank
>>> you in advance
>>>
>>> With kind regards
>>> Movses
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 08:42, Diane Peters 
>>> <diane AT creativecommons.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Movses,
>>>> I'm willing to explore if there is another word that doesn't have the
>>>> same implications as "Derivatives" and whether the distinction is really
>>>> something widely understood so that it might be considered for the title 
>>>> (in
>>>> Armenian) in the license title.  In the legal code, I assume the word in
>>>> Armenian that you use for "Adaptation" is different from the word in
>>>> Armenian for "Derivatives", per the discussion we have been having.
>>>>  Assuming that is the case, then I would be interested in your thoughts
>>>> about whether that would be appropriate for the Armenian translation of 
>>>> the
>>>> ND titles?
>>>>
>>>> Interested in your thoughts on this.  We can talk about this later also,
>>>> as we approach launch.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Diane
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Movses Hakobyan <
>>>> movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Diane,
>>>>> Thanks for comments, I had some thoughts on commons deed too and it
>>>>> shall be adjusted. But what do you think about changing License title 
>>>>> to "no
>>>>> derivatives *except collections*"? Does it look appropriate for you?
>>>>> In this case, neither legal collision nor confusion could occur.
>>>>> However, I guess that it would be inconsistent with general policy of 
>>>>> CC, as
>>>>> far as I know, to have maximally harmonized and consistent licenses all 
>>>>> over
>>>>> the jurisdictions.Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> With best regards
>>>>> Movses
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 04:16, Diane Peters <diane AT creativecommons.org
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>>>> Please forgive the second email.  But it did occur to me to call
>>>>>> attention to one additional consideration that you may already be 
>>>>>> aware of
>>>>>> but I wanted to be sure wasn't overlooked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You expressed concern that people might be confused by the human
>>>>>> readable commons deed, since they may not look at the legal code where 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> division between collective works and adaptations is defined for 
>>>>>> purposes of
>>>>>> what they can and cannot do with an ND licensed work.  Please keep in 
>>>>>> mind
>>>>>> that in finalizing the licenses and launch, your team will have some
>>>>>> latitude to select the most appropriate terminology for the Armenian
>>>>>> language commons deed.  You may want to consider how to phrase "no
>>>>>> derivative works" appropriately.  That may help convey via the human
>>>>>> readable commons deed the concept that is spelled out in the legal 
>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you to complete this.  You're very
>>>>>> close!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Diane
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Diane Peters <
>>>>>> diane AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>>>>> Thanks again.  I believe we understand your issue thoroughly.
>>>>>>>  Unfortunately, I do not believe there is anything more we can do with
>>>>>>> respect to the text of the ND licenses themselves as we cannot have 
>>>>>>> the ND
>>>>>>> term extend to use of a work in Collections, as already mentioned.  
>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>> what we can tell, you've drafted those provisions as best as possible 
>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>> the circumstances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I kindly offer the following additional suggestions, though.  First,
>>>>>>> your team make clear in the explanation of substantive changes 
>>>>>>> document the
>>>>>>> differences between how adaptations are treated under Armenian law 
>>>>>>> and how
>>>>>>> they are treated under the ND licenses - which you may have already 
>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>> ;-).  Second, that you create an FAQ in Armenian for inclusion on the 
>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>> jurisdiction web site making this clear also - you might model it on 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> description included in the substantive changes document.  And third, 
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> closely with the other leads and agree to emphasize this difference in
>>>>>>> presentations and whenever the licenses are being promoted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For CC's part, I am going to look into preparing an FAQ for the main
>>>>>>> website on the importance of licensors and licensees understanding
>>>>>>> jurisdiction specific issues before they choose a license, as well as
>>>>>>> including that on our "Things to Thing About" before using a CC 
>>>>>>> license
>>>>>>> page.  We will also think about publishing an explanation about the
>>>>>>> intricacies of "adaptation" vs "derivative work" issue so that other
>>>>>>> countries with similar issues share a common understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully, between all these efforts we can help minimize any
>>>>>>> potential confusion and educate would-be licensors and licensees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe we should now proceed ahead with having the proposal you've
>>>>>>> made (separating adaptation and collective work into their own 
>>>>>>> stand-alone
>>>>>>> definitions noting where appropriate these are the definitions "for 
>>>>>>> purposes
>>>>>>> of the" licenses) integrated into the licenses.  Does that sound 
>>>>>>> correct to
>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> Diane
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Movses Hakobyan <
>>>>>>> movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Diane,
>>>>>>>> Thanks for reply. As you know according to RA Law on Copyright both
>>>>>>>> adaptations and Collections are Derivative Works. Moreover, the 
>>>>>>>> Title of
>>>>>>>> License is "NoDerivatives" that again implies both adaptations and
>>>>>>>> collections and in fact could mislead users especially those who did 
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> read Legal Code but commons deeds. Of course we can make a 
>>>>>>>> reservation in
>>>>>>>> the text of the license like "for the purpose of this license 
>>>>>>>> collections
>>>>>>>> are not derivative work" or smt like that but I have doubts whether 
>>>>>>>> it can
>>>>>>>> work because in case of discrepancy between the License and the Law 
>>>>>>>> (brought
>>>>>>>> as an argument by complainant) the court rulling usually is in favor 
>>>>>>>> of law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> May be there are other considerations that I overlooked? Please
>>>>>>>> advise me
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>>>> Movses
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 00:45, Diane Peters <
>>>>>>>> diane AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just so I'm clear, when you say "not in line with Armenian
>>>>>>>>> legislation", do you mean that by separating the definitions of 
>>>>>>>>> Adaptation
>>>>>>>>> and Collection in the way proposed above, the license wouldn't be 
>>>>>>>>> legally
>>>>>>>>> interpreted correctly or enforceable as intended under Armenian 
>>>>>>>>> law? Or do
>>>>>>>>> you mean, it doesn't have the same visual structure but legally the 
>>>>>>>>> ND
>>>>>>>>> license will be interpreted and enforced under Armenian law 
>>>>>>>>> properly?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I, too, prefer the approach of keeping the definitions separate for
>>>>>>>>> clarity if at all possible and provided it doesn't render the 
>>>>>>>>> license
>>>>>>>>> unenforceable and it is interpreted correctly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regarding your question about restricting collections as a
>>>>>>>>> derivative work, as you note, our ND licenses expressly permit a 
>>>>>>>>> licensee to
>>>>>>>>> distribute the work as part of a collection, so that right should 
>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>> limited in the ported ND licenses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hope this makes sense, looking forward to your reply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>> Diane
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Movses Hakobyan <
>>>>>>>>> movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Diane,
>>>>>>>>>> Frankly, there is no way to be in line with Armenian legislation
>>>>>>>>>> in this regard because collections and adaptations are treated 
>>>>>>>>>> under the
>>>>>>>>>> same definition namely "Derivative Works" under Armenian Law. The 
>>>>>>>>>> problem is
>>>>>>>>>> that legally we could not separate them, otherwise to keep license 
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> restricting derivative works (as for Armenian law) shall mean 
>>>>>>>>>> restrict
>>>>>>>>>> collections too, which is contrary to the philosophy of creative 
>>>>>>>>>> commons
>>>>>>>>>> licenses with ND element. If you have any suggestion they are 
>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>> welcome. By the way, what do you think it is possible to restrict
>>>>>>>>>> collections (collective works) as a part of derivative works?
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Movses
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 22:01, Diane Peters <
>>>>>>>>>> diane AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>>>>>>>>> To follow up on this proposal per the email thread below, I have
>>>>>>>>>>> no objections to the structure and am supportive.  My only 
>>>>>>>>>>> concerns were
>>>>>>>>>>> that (1) this structure needed to legally work under Armenian 
>>>>>>>>>>> law, and it
>>>>>>>>>>> appears that it does from your emails, and (2) users of the 
>>>>>>>>>>> licenses (and
>>>>>>>>>>> courts in your jurisdiction, for that matter) are able to 
>>>>>>>>>>> understand the
>>>>>>>>>>> structure without difficulty.  Your emails suggest this works for 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> licenses, and so I'm supportive of how this has worked out.  I 
>>>>>>>>>>> believe we're
>>>>>>>>>>> set!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to seeing the concluded licenses.  Good luck with
>>>>>>>>>>> that process, and thanks for your hard work and focus on the 
>>>>>>>>>>> intricacies of
>>>>>>>>>>> the license porting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Diane
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Movses Hakobyan <
>>>>>>>>>>> movses.hakobyan AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Catharina,
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is very nice to come to the conclusion with drafting
>>>>>>>>>>>> Licenses. I hope in a couple of days I will forward all 
>>>>>>>>>>>> materials for
>>>>>>>>>>>> proofreading.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for expertize
>>>>>>>>>>>> Movses
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 15:47, Catharina Maracke <
>>>>>>>>>>>> catharina AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for getting back to me on this. Your suggestion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sounds fine to me if this also fits into Armenian law? If you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> go for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution, please make sure that in both licenses including the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ND element
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND) you don't mention the term "derivative 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work" or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "adaptation" in the license grant or in Section 7) or 8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diane, do you have any objections or concerns?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much again to all of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catharina
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Dr. Catharina Maracke
>>>>>>>>>>>>> catharina AT creativecommons.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Movses Hakobyan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Catharina,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see we are in the final stage, and just the last question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what do you think if I take over the structure /solution from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BY-ND Unported
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version as below? Is this OK? So, first goes definition of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adaptation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes "derivative work" (only for the purpose of this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> License) then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "collection" that  will not be considered asan Adaptation and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Movses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. Definitions*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    1. *"Adaptation"* means a work based upon the Work, or upon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> translation, adaptation,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Work may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognizably derived
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    from the original, except that a work that constitutes a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Collection will not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a moving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    License.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    2. *"Collection"* means a collection of literary or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> performances,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other than works
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intellectual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unmodified form
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    along with one or more other contributions, each 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constituting separate and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    independent works in themselves, which together are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembled into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    considered an Adaptation (as defined above) for the purposes 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    License.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 17:46, Catharina Maracke <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> catharina AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Movses,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for your reply! I think your suggestion sounds
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine and we should go ahead. As mentioned, it would be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important to clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate collections and adaptations (or any other appropriate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "adaptation" depending on local Copyright law) so that we can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarify that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both ND licenses (BY-ND and BY-NC-ND) don't allow for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derivative works but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still allow to distribute and publicly perform the work 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorporated in collections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My apologies for not being aware of this earlier - sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some final questions only come up at the very last minute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you revise the licenses and send back to us for final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofreading?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catharina
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Dr. Catharina Maracke
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> catharina AT creativecommons.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Movses Hakobyan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Catharina,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Back to our discussions on the first license BY-NC-SA, I made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "derivative work" to include both adaptations and collections 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provisions of Armenian Copyright Law. At that time we agreed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to follow that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formulation to be in line with Law at least for this point. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to find optimal solution I separated adaptations and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collections
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within "derivative work" definition to address them separately 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording of License.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, on this point, what I can suggest (BY-ND License) is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    1. Keep two definitions (Adaptation and Collection) intact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    but remove the note on derivative work (Section 1.a) as it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is appeared in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Unported version (BY-ND License).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    2. Distinguish Collections from Adaptations (instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    derivative work- As you suggested-Am I right?) with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioning -"for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    purpose of this license".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    3. And finally implement all abovementioned only in BY-ND
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    license.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am looking for your reply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Movses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
> --
> Diane M. Peters, General Counsel
> Creative Commons
> 171 Second St, Suite 300
> San Francisco, CA  94105
> office: +1 415-369-8480
> fax: +1 415-278-9419
> cell: +1 503-803-8338
> skype:  peterspdx
> email:diane AT creativecommons.org <email%3Adiane AT creativecommons.org>
> ______________________________________
>
>
>


-- 
Movses Hakobyan
Lawyer/Project Director
Internews' Centre for Information Law and Policy
3 Arshakunyats Ave, Yerevan 0023, Armenia
tel: + 374 10 583620
fax: + 374 10 569041
www.internews.am
www.media.am
www.gipi.am