Cc-uk mailing list

[John Howkins <john AT johnhowkins.com>]

As an Englishman, a supporter of CC, an observer of the drafting of these
licences and someone who often negotiates contracts in film/TV, can I say
that just as I would always state a contract's relevant law (in my case, the
law of England and Wales) so it is an absolute necessity to have CC licences
for each UK jurisdiction, of equal status, and I can't imagine why anyone
would think otherwise.
(And the UK is not the same as GB - we've had a civil war over that issue
for a few years now)
John



On 6/12/04 11:19 pm, "Jonathan Mitchell" <website3 AT jonathanmitchell.info>
wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-uk mailing list
> Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk
>