Cc-uk mailing list

[Cory Doctorow <cory AT eff.org>]

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