Cc-uk mailing list

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 29 Oct 2004, at 12:04, Prodromos Tsiavos wrote:

> (b)	Waiving the integrity right: iCC is considering whether there 
> should be
> a separate IN (i.e. integrity) Licence Element. Our position in 
> relation to the
> CC-UK licences is to explicitly waive it for clarity and certainty 
> reasons and
> iCC seems to be fine with it, but the question of whether there should 
> be an IN
> Licence Element remains open. We are also interested in your comments 
> on the
> wording of the waiver clause.

If I'm deriving, I'm not the original author, so does that mean I'm not 
waiving? ;-)

The wording is a little intimidating, but I suppose it's not exactly a 
minor clause.

Is it worth making it clear that the licensor is waiving their moral 
rights for use of the work *through this license*, rather than 
generally? Is that possible? That would presumably make a difference if 
the licensor relicensed the work, which is  likely for NC work.

> (c)	Regarding section 7.1.: It may not be possible to remove this 
> clause
> before CC takes such a decision for version 3.0 of the CC licences, 
> but I will
> raise the point with the iCC team.

Certainly CC-US aren't in any hurry to take it out, from what they've 
said on cc-license-discuss. It's not major, it just raises eyebrows.

> I am looking forward for your comments (and the weekend to come) ;-)

Does sublicensing clash with being able to relicense the work under 
another compatible license, even if only conceptually? Or is this just 
common sense? :-)

0. What is a legally recognised person? Is this for companies that own 
copyrights?

1. What is a high-level license element? (I mean, I know what it is, 
but is it a common legal term?)

2.2 Nobody is worried about the CA license becoming a black hole for 
content? So if someone licenses some work in Japan under  CC-BY-NC-JP, 
someone re-licenses that CC-BY-NC-UK here, and someone else combines 
that work with something from the creative archive, the original 
licensor can't then use the derived work back in Japan under the 
license they originally licensed their work under. The Japanese 
contributor obviously doesn't "lose" their original work, but they are 
denied downstream access to derived work. Is this fair?

2.3 Same terms and conditions or same license? (I know I've mentioned 
that before, just something that catches a layperson's eye).

- Rob.