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: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft
  • Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:31:00 +0100

On 13 Jul 2004, at 22:58, Andres Guadamuz wrote:

If there are problems with the GPL in French law, then people should adapt
it to comply with their local legislation. Otherwise, there is always a
chance that somebody will attack the licence and win because the provisions
do not accommodate local copyright law. I have read and spoken to people who
have concerns from Spain, France and Germany about the validity of the GPL
in those countries. If the choice is between using a possibly unenforceable
licence, and an enforceable one, then I think developers should choose the
one that works.

However, I share your concern about creating many different versions of the
same licence. I agree with you, and I think that the solution is to have
general licences, such as CC and GPL, and use them until a local court has
ruled against them. But I also believe that developers are entitled to
create different licences, under different names, that comply with local
legislation. Otherwise, local developers may be risking their own work by
using an unenforceable licence.

As I say, the important thing is to not introduce novel clauses that aren't in the original license or required by legislation. As for things like "no warranty", which is apparently unenforceable in France, the localised CC license can offset this as far as possible (like the new French Open Source license). I think French law is more different from American law than English/Welsh law. IANAL.

Here's a translation of the German iCommons license, and the US original:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent? url=http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby- sa%2F2.0%2Fde%2Flegalcode&lp=de_en

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode

You can get a sense of the differences, the amusing effect of machine translation aside.

Personally I think even the CC variants are too much difference,
everything should be GPL-equivalent (CC-SA), although I know that's not
going to be a universally popular position. :-) <<

I agree, and I think that the solution is to have a definition with minimal
standards that a licence should have.

I think CC is close to this with the "human readable" precis of the license and the baseline rights that you mention (which being able to set the duration of the license breaks!).

The idea is to share, freedom of movement is an important Freedom. :-) <<

I thoroughly agree, but the freedom to draft your own licence should also be
an important freedom ;-)

LOL. Ok. :-)

Microsoft et al manage to license their software to their own satisfaction
around the world. I don't see why Open Content shouldn't manage
similarly...<<

This is true, but Microsoft is an entirely different model. Their typical
EULA is very simple: you buy our software, you can sometimes use our
software, you cannot do anything else with it, thank you very much. Besides,
they have a network of local firms around the world, and the resources to
use them. They have the power, and the money to implement their licence. On
the other hand, the licensing model for FLOSS, CC and open access in general
involves very complex legal relationships. Many concepts are new and have
not been tested in court, so getting the licence right is very important. It
is also important to think about locality, because we are generally talking
about individual creators and programmers who do not have the resources to
enforce their work around the world.

Microsoft EULAs are based on copyright and licensing law. So is CC (and all F/OS/S/C). CC does involve more parties, but it's still copyright (albeit ironised). Exercise for the non-lawyers on the list: have a flick through the license booklet that came with your operating system. :-)

We need an Open-WIPO. :-)

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page