Cc-uk mailing list

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 11:36AM, Prodromos Tsiavos 
<prodromos.tsiavos AT socio-legal-studies.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:

>We would be grateful if you 
>could provide us with some comments on the license draft within the next 
>couple 
>of weeks, as our objective is to have a working version of the license by 
>late 
>July.  

I'm off on holiday for two weeks tomorrow, so this is the only chance I'll 
have to comment.
IANAL....

Precis.
-------

This is great! Make sure the license doesn't go beyond the provisions or 
requirements of the US license, make a few bits of language less verbose, and 
try to keep the sections in synch with the US version. Compatibility with the 
US license must be an overriding concern as far as possible under 
English/Welsh law.

Entire License.
---------------

The numbering and breakdown does not reflect the American license. This makes 
cross-referencing the license difficult. The numbering and sectioning should, 
wherever possible, reflect the American version.

I applaud the use of Plain English. The US license has otherwise intelligent 
non-lawyers arguing over the interpretation of various points in its 
legalese. :-)

Which version of the license is this a localisation of? Some clauses look 
2.0, but some 2.0 provisions appear to be missing.

Please can "his" be replaced with "their" or "his/her".

Extra clauses (varying date of license, sudden audit requirement) should be 
removed, missing clauses (author can waive attribution) should be restored.

Sections.
---------

1.1 - Identification of work. This is not requried in other CC/iCommons 
licenses and is an incompatibility with them. This really should be taken out 
and the work marked outside the license text as per the US version.

1.1.1 - Here clarity becomes verbosity. Can this be combined with the 
original definition of terms?

1.2 - This is incompatible with the 2.0 US license, which removes any such 
representation. I argued long and hard in *favour* of this sort of 
representation, but it's now gone and we (I :-) ) have to accept that. So 
this should go.

1.3 - Surely this is implicit in any license?

2.0 - Changing the duration is cool but seriosuly incompatible with the US 
license and should be removed. I believe the purpose of the iCommons is to 
translate the basic idea of the license and to make it more robust for local 
law whilst retaining compatibility with other versions of the same license.

2.1 - I like the idea of the duration calculator very much. :-) Possibly this 
URL shouldn't be in the license, though, as it is more a service than a term.

3 - Does the US version's "derivative work" cover translation, and if so does 
this section need to mention translation explicitly? Translation is mentioned 
later in the license, but not here that I can see.

3B - "Later new versions of the work as well" - surely not new versions by 
the original author??? This would be majorly incompatible, a draconian 
imposition, and would frighten people off. It shopuld be made clear that this 
is not the case. 

3C Note - Pardon? I can't follow this. :-)

3D - "Do the things" is possibly too plain english. Excercise the rights? 
Perform the actions?

4A - In the US 2.0 version the author can waive this requirement. This should 
be reflected here if this is a 2.0 translation.

4A/B Notes - These are more detailed than the US version, although probably 
equivalent. This needs checking, though, to ensure compatibility. In 
particular the "credit for the original format", whilst excellent, may be 
incompatible.

4D - Is this compatible with the US version? If not, is it required under 
English/Welsh law? If neither, it needs to go to keep compatibility.

4F - This is currently causing some confusion on cc-discuss. The license URL 
and the author-provided URL required as part of their attribution may be 
different. Is this the 2.0 license, then? Under 2.0 the license URL *MUST* be 
included with the work, or the license text as a wholse must be provided 
instead. 
To make this clear: there are two mentions of URLs that must be included with 
CC-BY-2.0, the license and the author's specified attribution URL. Are these 
being confused here? Or is the latter being excluded? There is no mention of 
the latter anyhere else that I can see. 

4H - Is this compatible with the US version? If not, is it required under 
English/Welsh law? If neither, it needs to go to keep compatibility and to 
avoid being draconian. I would not use work licensed under such terms (SCO 
has used a similar clause in its licenses to great effect in its current 
spurious lawsuits in the US).

5B/D/E - Is this compatible with the US version? If not, is it required under 
English/Welsh law? If neither, it needs to go

5F - Isn't this implicit?

6A - WHAT???? Surely this is incompatible with the US license. It is 
draconian. There is *NO WAY* I would use work licensed under these terms. 
Please revert to the "user may use this version or later"-type language of 
the US licenses.

7 - Again, this sort of "representation of authority to contribute", whilst 
something I'm a proponent of, was removed from the US version 2.0 and is 
therefore incompatible with it. It should be removed.

8 - This sort of unilateral audit is a Bad Thing and incompatible with the US 
license. Please remove (see 4H).

Thanks.

- Rob.