Cc-uk mailing list

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

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.