Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft

cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-uk mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Cory Doctorow <cory AT eff.org>
  • To: "Christian Ahlert" <christian.ahlert AT oii.ox.ac.uk>
  • Cc: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org, 'Prodromos Tsiavos' <prodromos.tsiavos AT socio-legal-studies.oxford.ac.uk>
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft
  • Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:27:37 +0100

My feeling is that a licenses that breaks compatibility with the CC-US license could do a lot of harm:

* New works will not be able to freely mix material from the US and UK licenses (especially problematic if share-alike is chosen -- if I mix a CC-UK share-alike and a CC-US share-alike work, what's the license of the resulting work?)

* Creators will have to decide if they want to grant the UK freedoms or the US freedoms -- which means that a creator in the US might choose a UK license or vice-versa: we're trying to simplify the licensing process, not complexify it, and 100 different national implementations of the CC license invites a combinatorial explosion of license confusion

* Commenwealth countries like Canada, India, etc with legal systems descended from the UK's will model their licenses on the UK license, which means that this has the danger of bifurcating the license into US and commonwealth splits

On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:17 PM, Christian Ahlert 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...

Best
--Ch


Christian Ahlert
www.oii.ox.ac.uk
Oxford Internet Institute
www.ahlert.org
+44(0)1865 287 203


-----Original Message-----
From: cc-uk-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-uk-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Rob Myers
Sent: 13 July 2004 12:58
To: Cory Doctorow
Cc: Prodromos Tsiavos; cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft

IANAL, I'm nothing to do with CC.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 01:34PM, Cory Doctorow <cory AT eff.org> wrote:

Remove any mention of the Author from any new Version or larger piece
in which the Work is included, if the Creator requests.

Somewhere above this term in the license, we need something that says
that this doesn't derogate from fair dealing rights to criticise,
etc...

I do see your point but this is from the original CC-2.0 license. I think it
was part of a fudge to keep those of us who wanted to keep a nonattribution
license happy, or more probably to make sure that your name doesn't appear
on a porn collection that includes two lines of your work. :-)

Allow the use of technological measures ? e.g., digital watermarking
or encryption devices ? to control use of or access to the Work or any
version of it.

I hate DRM as much as the next person, but this is overly broad. If I
create a private community for me and my friends to circulate our
derived works, and I passowrd-protect it and encrypt its outputs, I'll
be in violation of this term. Why do we need this?

This is from the original CC-2.0 . We need it so people can't lock CC
content behind a DRM barrier, making the license ineffective in practice.
This would be an example of Lessig's replacement of legal enforcement with
technological enforcement...

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
Cc-uk mailing list
Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk


_______________________________________________
Cc-uk mailing list
Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page