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: Cory Doctorow <cory AT eff.org>
  • To: Prodromos Tsiavos <prodromos.tsiavos AT socio-legal-studies.oxford.ac.uk>
  • Cc: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] Latest Draft v.301 (RFC)
  • Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:39:13 +0100

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page