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 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 14:45:41 +0100

I don't quite understand the distinction: a license that's as compatible as possible would also be as true as possible to the spirit, no?

On Jul 13, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Christian.Ahlert AT oii.ox.ac.uk wrote:

Understood and agreed! But - and this might lead away from the
narrow task to dicuss the draft license at hand and to make it as
good as we can - this goes back to the question of how to treat the
original US license.

I totally agree that compatibility in between contries and
jurisdictions should be one of the most important goals, but do we
not end up - under the current system - with 100 different national
implementations of the CC license anyways?

I mean we all take the US-license as a starting point and then try
to port in into UK, German, Japanese etc. law. So my point is:
what is more important, the spirit of the license and as much
compatibility as possible (given the national restrictions), or being
as close as possible to the US example? Maybe that's the same
anyways... Or should we use a simpler global template (I think this
was proposed by David Vaver?)

--Ch



Am 13 Jul 2004, um 14:27 hat Cory Doctorow geschrieben:

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




Christian.Ahlert AT oii.ox.ac.uk
Thoughts- Themes - Tinkerings www.ahlert.org
Oxford Internet Institute
+44 (0)1865 287 203
_______________________________________________
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