Cc-uk mailing list

["Hector MacQueen" <hector.macqueen AT ed.ac.uk>]

Dear Prodromos

Thanks for this constructive approach.  Jonathan and I have just been
discussing (in real time, over two cups of coffee) the way forward here
in Scotland, and I don't think we (but I can only speak for myself here)
will have too much difficulty with what you suggest regarding "CC-UK".
"CC-GB" might have its own inaccuracies with regard to Northern Ireland,
(to say nothing of Isle of Man, Channel Islands etc which aren't part of
UK either).  Happy to continue discussions online, and happy with what
you say re integrity right.  I don't think Scots version will end up
very different in effect from EW or any other CC licence.

Best

Hector

************************

Hector L MacQueen
Professor of Private Law 
Director, AHRB Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and
Technology Law
University of Edinburgh
Old College
South Bridge
Edinburgh EH8 9YL
UK
Tel (UK)-(0)131-650-2060
Fax (UK)-(0)131-650-6317
Email: hector.macqueen AT ed.ac.uk
Web: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ 

************************


-----Original Message-----
From: cc-uk-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-uk-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Prodromos Tsiavos
Sent: 06 December 2004 12:17
To: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [Cc-uk] CC-UK (CC-Scotland, CC-EW, CC-N.Ireland) etc


Dear All,

Thank you for all your postings the last couple of days. These have been

extremely useful and constructive comments which have advanced the
drafting 
process and the conceptualisation of the CC-UK project. In particular:

(a)     Regarding the CC-UK licences (i.e. CC-Scotland, CC-EW, CC-N.
Ireland):
-       Jonathan’s point is valid: the CC licences that explicitly refer
to the 
jurisdiction of England and Wales will be henceforth called CC-EW. I
have made 
the respective changes and am attaching the relevant draft. I will also
raise 
the issue during the phone conference on the 8th of December and since
the iCC 
seem to be of the same opinion, we should consider the issue resolved. 
-        The three CC-UK licences need to remain as close to each other
as 
possible, i.e. we need all to keep working on the same text and make
only the 
changes rendered necessary by the intricacies of each national UK
jurisdiction. 
The CC-EW has been drafted in such a fashion and I would expect the
fruitful 
exchange of opinions to continue for the other CC-UK licence drafts.
Jonathan 
has already indicated that “It wouldn't take long to do a Scottish
draft; 95% 
of the work has been done. The present team has indicated however that
the 
remaining 5% is beyond their interest and/or expertise. And why should
it be 
within either? I wouldn¹t have the nerve myself to publish a contract
for use 
under another system of law (and my professional insurance cover
wouldn't 
protect me if I did!).That is surely the point of 'national' projects
under 
CC.” In the drafting of the CC-EW licence we have chosen to “open
source” the 
licence process and take as many comments on board as possible. The
emergence 
of three instances (licences) of the CC-UK, as necessitated  by the
national 
jurisdictions, is a case emphasising the maturing of the project. The
next step 
in this process is continuing the process of sharing  while working on
the 
standardisation and compatibility. It is important that the discussion 
concerning the CC-Scotland licence continues on this mailing list, so
that we 
can all benefit from the exchange of opinions and drafts while retaining

standardisation. 
(b)     Regarding the use of the “CC-GB”:
-       I think it would be better to stick with the CC-UK title to
describe 
all three national UK licences and then choose CC names that correspond
to the 
jurisdictions as accurately as possible, e.g. CC-EW for England and
Wales. 
Introducing another new name at this stage will only add to confusion
(c)     Regarding the use of open formats. I am now attaching the
document in 
RTF format (with some suggested but not final changes). I have had
problems 
with RTF format in the past as it did not display properly the “notes”
feature 
of the word format, so I will try to post both in rtf and doc format
from now 
on. 
(d)     Regarding the integrity right: There have been intensive
discussions 
both on this list and off line concerning the way the integrity right
should be 
treated. I’m still an advocate of letting the user decide(explicitly
assert or 
waive the right), but this may not be possible at this stage because of 
standardisation problems. You may find a document that explains the
chronicle 
of different solutions we have tried up to now and the related problems.
In the 
latest draft of the licence you may find a suggestion by the iCC team.
Let me 
know what you think. I did not change the reference to the CC-UK 2.01,
because 
that is the name we were using for the licence at the time. Needless to
say 
that this is an issue that needs to be treated uniformly by all the
CC-UK 
licences. 


Please let me know what you think
Best,
Prodromos




BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:MacQueen;Hector
FN:MACQUEEN Hector
ORG:The University of Edinburgh;Edinburgh Law School
TITLE:PROFESSOR
ADR;WORK:;Edinburgh Law School
LABEL;WORK:Edinburgh Law School
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:hectorm AT uun.ed.ac.uk
REV:20040503T111613Z
END:VCARD