Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - Re: [Cc-uk] Latest Draft v.301 (RFC)

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 <cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] Latest Draft v.301 (RFC)
  • Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:46:10 +0100

On 28 Sep 2004, at 19:55, Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:

2. One of the commentators suggested that section 3.Va does not add
anything to the license but I have chosen not to remove it as it is contained
in CC 2.0 and makes clear that the terms of the license should not be altered.
What is your opinion on that?

If it's contained in the original and helps with clarity those are two good reasons for it to stay.

3. The NonCommercial term s.3Vd is considered as too restrictive by some
commentators. Opinions?

The wording of cc-nc-2.0 is:

"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."

I think the cc-uk version is comparable.

4. We have excluded any warranty of title on behalf of the Rightsholder
but there were people asking for it to be put back. Comments?

I spent ages arguing for this to be in 2.0 but it isn't so it shouldn't be in the UK version either.

5. I have removed all the provisions related to the integrity right. I did
not include explicit waiver of the right (although this would be my preference
for extra certainty) to follow the US model. I think that we should follow the
Canadian model that has the Integrity right as an extra License Element and
offer it as an option although I assume Cory would not be a fan of such an
approach

Can you get some input on this from Lessig or someone else *legal* from CC-US? It's a pretty fundamental issue with no globally-practical solution.

I'm still torn over this (after two rounds of debate over it). Integrity is a limit on freedom, and Cory's pointed out the practical problems. Given that I can object to treatment of an image of mine on integrity grounds for reasons as minor as it being cropped badly, integrity and derivation looks like a problematic combination. But it's a right (as in "some rights reserved"), and I am concerned that a waiver will scare people: the warranty scared people and was taken out for 2.0.

14. Licensed the license under itself. Comments?

I think it's traditional to retain copyright on Open Source licenses. AFAIK the cc-2.0 licenses aren't licensed under themselves. Whilst you do want to allow people to derive from the license you don't want them to be able to call the license a Creative Commons license, so cc-ing the license itself is probably not a good idea.

17. The text of the licence is now rather extensive (8 pages) but hopefully
is self-explanatory

It's only about as long as the conventional copyright contracts I have from an old "Artists Newsletter" information pack. Those are in large type, though. ;-)

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page