Cc-uk mailing list

[Cory Doctorow <cory AT eff.org>]

That's a much much cleaner version -- MUCH MUCH MUCH cleaner. I'm very 
happy with it.

I still don't like the idea of including the right of intergrity as an 
option b/c I think it's like the traditional DRM/maximalist 
proposition: "Would you like the protection afforded by right of 
integrity?" Well sure, who wouldn't want more "protection?"

The right of integrity exists in UK law. People who want to assert it 
can use the courts to do so, but if they do so in large numbers, it'll 
be a disaster for CC in the UK. Let's at least not put any ideas into 
their heads.

Cory

On Sep 28, 2004, at 7:55 PM, Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Sorry for the late reply but I was trying to get all possible comments 
> before
> making the changes.
>
> This is version 3.01 of the license and it incorporates most of the 
> comments I
> have received in the latest consultation phase.
>
> In particular the following concerns have been addressed:
> 1.      Being clear about the sublicensing issue as well as addressing the
> question of who licenses what when a New Version of the Work is 
> distributed.
> Sections 7.I and 7.II are dealing explicitly with this issue.
> 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?
> 3.	The NonCommercial term s.3Vd is considered as too restrictive by 
> some
> commentators. Opinions?
> 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?
> 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
>
> 6.      The word “License” was changed to “Licence”
> 7.	“legally recognised” was added in s.3. I did not remove exemptions 
> as
> the term is also used in Copyright literature.
> 8.      The definition of “royalty” was added
> 9.      I re-organised section 3III to make it more readable. This was input
> from our latest focus group.
> 10.	Changed the word “attribution” back to “credit”, as easier to 
> understand
> 11.     added definition for URI
> 12.	the additional note were not put as footnotes to make sure that 
> people
> will read them.
> 13.     The word “Rightsholder” was used instead of “Owner” (good point!)
> 14.     Licensed the license under itself. Comments?
> 15.	Made all the changes that Rob suggested but the one regarding 
> s.3.IV.g.
> I think that this should remain as it is.
> 16.	I restructured the last section of the licence to increase 
> readability
> 17.	The text of the licence is now rather extensive (8 pages) but 
> hopefully
> is self-explanatory
>
>
> Please let me know what you think the soonest possible!
>
> Best,
> Prodromos
> <CC-UK v3.01(P).doc>_______________________________________________
> Cc-uk mailing list
> Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk