cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Cc-uk mailing list
List archive
- From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
- To: Christian Ahlert <christian.ahlert AT oii.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: 'Prodromos Tsiavos' <prodromos.tsiavos AT socio-legal-studies.oxford.ac.uk>, 'Cory Doctorow' <cory AT eff.org>, cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: RE: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:47:39 +0100
On Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 02:20PM, Christian Ahlert
<christian.ahlert AT oii.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Okay! Here a question from a non-lawyer, no-clue person about copyright.
>Why (Rob) does the UK-license need to resemble so closely the US-license (as
>you seem to imply)? Its clear to me that it needs to follow the "spirit" and
>the "intention" of the US license..
IANAL, and I'm nothing to do with CC...
There's two ways in which I think the UK license should resemble the US
version.
It should, if possible, resemble it structurally. This is so that when we
talk about 5a we know what we're talking about, whatever the jurisdiction.
The sections of the license can become a useful shorthand. If this isn't
possible it's not too bad, though. The German 5a isn't the American 5a, so
there isn't a precedent for this.
Far more importantly the license should replicate the requirements and
provisions of the US license as closely as possible. This is the spirit and
the intention, I suppose, but with rigour. If I can make a translation of
licensed work under the US version but not under the UK version, or if the UK
version requires audits whereas the US version doesn't, then the UK license
is incompatible. Incompatibility is bad. The whole point of the iCommons is
to make compatible legal documents for the licenses. These legal documents
will sit between the human-readable description and the machine-readable
metadata. See the diagram of the licensing model at:
http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/
and read the description of the process at:
http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/overview
We need the UK license to be compatible, otherwise this model breaks and we
end up with content ghettoes (ie I couldn't use German or Brazilian work,
they couldn't use my work). This would be very bad, in this situation IMHO
we'd be better off just using the original US CC license.
Don't get me wrong, I think the second draft of the CC-UK license is
*excellent*. My only concern (and it's a serious concern) is that the license
absolutely must be compatible with the original CC license to the maximum
extent possible in English/Welsh law. Any variations not absolutely requried
by legislation should not be included.
- Rob.
-
RE: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft
, (continued)
-
RE: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
Christian Ahlert, 07/13/2004
-
Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
Cory Doctorow, 07/13/2004
-
Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
Christian . Ahlert, 07/13/2004
-
Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
Cory Doctorow, 07/13/2004
-
RE: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
Andres Guadamuz, 07/13/2004
- Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft, Rob Myers, 07/13/2004
- RE: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft, Andres Guadamuz, 07/13/2004
- Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft, Rob Myers, 07/13/2004
-
RE: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
Andres Guadamuz, 07/13/2004
-
Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
Cory Doctorow, 07/13/2004
-
Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
Christian . Ahlert, 07/13/2004
-
Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
Cory Doctorow, 07/13/2004
-
Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
David Harris, 07/13/2004
- Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft, Rob Myers, 07/13/2004
-
RE: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft,
Christian Ahlert, 07/13/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.