Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - Re: [Cc-uk] CC-UK (CC-Scotland, CC-EW, CC-N.Ireland) etc

cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-uk mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jonathan Mitchell <website3 AT jonathanmitchell.info>
  • To: Creative Commons UK <cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] CC-UK (CC-Scotland, CC-EW, CC-N.Ireland) etc
  • Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:19:31 +0000

1. I attach a full revised draft, with commentary on reasons for revisions,
as an rtf file. A multi-colour pdf, showing the deletions and changes, is
now at http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/uploads/CC-SCO-061204.pdf .

2. Although this is a Scottish draft, I would suggest that there are a
number of matters of drafting in the current English draft which need
fixing, and these are identified in the changes notes.

3. Yes, it is important that English and Scottish licences treat issues
uniformly; but that is because these are variants on worldwide licenses; it
is just as important that either treats issues uniformly with the Americans
or Canadians. This is not a reason for giving any one national project a
veto over the licenses of other jurisdictions as is effectively suggested,
and I do not think any other national project seeks to do so.

4. And yes, I am very happy with an all-UK mailing list for the exchange of
comment. But the suggestion, or implication, from Oxford that it is
essential that the English team maintain ultimate control over the terms of
licenses in other jurisdictions does not logically follow from this, and is
not really workable- as can be seen by considering the reverse suggestion
which would never be made or listened to!- and I would suggest that the
bog-standard Creative Commons model of one jurisdiction, one project should
be followed albeit with a united mailing list. Permit me to observe with all
respect that this only arises because my rather explosive comments last week
followed ten months of stonewalling of the suggestion (offlist and onlist)
that a supposedly UK project operate as such.

Jonathan
--
Jonathan Mitchell QC

Work telephone/mobile: 0773 963 9343
Faculty internal mobile extension: 3349
Fax to laptop: 0870 124 8222
Business address: Advocates Library, Parliament House, Edinburgh EH1 1RF,
Scotland
DX ED 549302, Edinburgh 36; Legal Post LP3, Edinburgh 10

Website: http://www.jonathanmitchell.info

Home address: 30 Warriston Crescent, Edinburgh EH3 5LB, Scotland.
Home telephone: 0131 557 0854.

This message, and any attachments, may contain legally privileged material
and are confidential to the intended recipient.

Please note that my clerk is Iain Murray; tel. 0131 260 5697; fax 0131 220
2654; e-mail murraystable AT advocates.org.uk . Instructions as counsel should
unless otherwise notified be channelled via him.
> From: Prodromos Tsiavos <prodromos.tsiavos AT socio-legal-studies.oxford.ac.uk>
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 12:17:10 +0000 (GMT)
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-uk mailing list
> Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk
>

Attachment: CC-SCO-061204.rtf
Description: Binary data




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page