Cc-uk mailing list

[Cory Doctorow <cory AT eff.org>]

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