Cc-uk mailing list

[David Illsley <david AT illsley.org>]

Thanks for the reply...
On 19 Apr 2005, at 23:47, Jonathan Mitchell wrote:

> <SNIP>
>
> 1. Taking 2.1.i first, which says "you must… keep intact all notices 
> that
> refer to this Licence…", this is simply driven by the generic licence 
> which
> has in 4b "You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License 
> and
> to the disclaimer of warranties". The EW licence says " to the extent
> reasonably practicable, keep intact all notices that refer to this 
> Licence,
> in particular the URI, if any, that the Licensor specifies to be 
> associated
> with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice 
> or
> licensing information for the Work". With all respect I don't follow 
> the
> point of the English variations.
I read the English variation to mean that if, in creating a derivative 
work of a CC-EW  work, and releasing CC-Generic, I can remove the CC-EW 
link as it 'does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing of the 
Work'. Having re-read Generic, it appears that for total conformity, 
even this sensible loophope probably isn't compatible. (My concern is 
that there are links to multiple licences in a derivative work and it 
isn't clear which one applies to the derivative work as a whole)
> 2. So far as 2.3 is concerned, David is quite right that there are 
> potential
> loopholes in the ability to create a derivative work and publish this 
> under
> a different licence: he says, "a worry I have is that an American 
> might take
> a work licensed
> under CC-Scotland, change the colour of the text and release this
> derivative work under CC-Generic". A change in the colour of the text
> wouldn't make it a derivative work, but any serious change would do so,
> clause 1b of generic. I don't think I see a difference in end result 
> between
> the Scottish, English, and generic definitions of 'derivative work', 
> which
> are in substance:
> Scottish: "a work that Uses the Work (or any substantial part of the 
> Work)
> in any material form whatsoever, other than as a whole and in 
> unmodified
> form";
> English: "any work created by the editing, modification, adaptation or
> translation of the Work in any media";
> Generic: "a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other 
> pre-existing
> works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art 
> reproduction,
> abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be 
> recast,
> transformed, or adapted"
> The difference is one of presentation and understanding, not effect. 
> The
> solution, if concerned, is to use a non-derivative edition; like other
> projects, we use non-commercial/ derivative/share-alike as a template
> because it raises all the issues.
My concern was not over  to definition of derivative works, but that it 
provides a hole through which to exploit the next bit.
> 3. David also says "At this point the moral rights
> language has been stripped from the licence to the work and presumably
> someone in the UK can then take that CC-Generic work and create a
> derogatory work and release it under whatever CC licence they like with
> the same elements."  I don't think so. Section 80 rights to object to
> derogatory treatment are not (I am open to correction) enforceable in 
> the US
> anyway, but they would remain enforceable in the UK under the statute,
> because they would never have been waived. Incidentally, if they 
> weren't
> mentioned in the licence at all, they still wouldn't be waived; the 
> reason
> for 2.1.f explicitly reserving the right to object is simply to avoid
> misunderstanding, given how differently the right is treated in 
> different
> jurisdictions, although I do know that many jurisdictions where the 
> right
> cannot be waived haven't bothered to say so.
Ah, it is as I hoped. Good.
> <SNIP>
>
> 6. On 6.2, which as revised says "This Licence is the entire agreement
> between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. It 
> replaces any
> earlier understandings, agreements or representations with respect to 
> the
> Work not specified here", the difference from the generic " This 
> License
> constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to 
> the
> Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or
> representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor 
> shall
> not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any
> communication from You. This License may not be modified without the 
> mutual
> written agreement of the Licensor and You" is to make clear, I hope, 
> that
> the parties can always reach a different agreement later if they want 
> to.
What effect does it have on previous agreements though?

Thanks for the detailed responses,
David

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature