http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5385 <pre>All -- We have some specific questions about attribution/marking in v.4, and we would love to get as much feedback as possible by the end of this month. The questions are posted on the 4.0 wiki here&lt;http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Questions_about_attribution.2Fmarking_in_4.0&gt;. I have also cut and pasted them below for those that would rather respond on the mailing list. Note that we are also trying to solicit feedback from specific communities, such as OER and others, so we are circulating the questions on a few other mailing lists as well. We will do our best to consolidate all feedback on the 4.0 wiki as we receive it. Thanks for your input. best, Sarah -------------------- In draft 1, we tried to simplify the attribution and marking requirements by putting them all into one section of the license in list form. This is designed to make it easier for licensees to understand and comply with their obligations. Specifically, when sharing the work, licensees must provide the following information when it is supplied by licensor: - Name of the author - Name of parties designed by licensor for attribution - Title of the work - Copyright notice - URI associated with the work - URI associated with the CC license - Notices, disclaimers, warranties referring to the CC license *(1)* Is there any *other* information we should require licensees to provide when fulfilling the attribution and marking requirements under CC licenses? Alternatively, is there anything in this list that is unnecessary for licensees to provide even when it is supplied by the licensor? Our goal is to make the requirements extensive enough to satisfy licensors’ desire to be attributed and recognized for their work without making the obligations impractical. *(2)* All of these requirements may be fulfilled in any reasonable manner based on the medium the licensee is using to share the licensed work. This flexibility is intended to help ease compliance with the license conditions. Does the current language grant licensees too much flexibility? Not enough? Is there anything else we should change to make it easier on licensees that are remixing content from multiple sources – the so-called “attribution stacking” problem? *(3) *If the URI associated with the work refers to a resource that specifies the name of the author (or attribution parties, if applicable) and title of the work, licensees may include only the URI rather than specifying that information separately. This is another attempt to make compliance with the license conditions easier and more flexible without compromising the needs and expectations of licensors. Is this shortcut appropriate and/or helpful? If the URI points to a resource that includes the other required information (e.g., the copyright notice), would it be preferable to allow the URI shortcut to satisfy those other requirements as well? *(4)* Some licensors have more detailed expectations for attribution of their work. Should we make allowances for licensors who want to include specific attribution requirements (e.g., a particular attribution statement), or would this unnecessarily complicate license compliance? Note that any particular requirements would need to be subject to the reasonableness standard to be consistent with the explicit terms of the license. *(5) *Another possibility is to change the language to a more general requirement to acknowledge the author and cite the original work and applicable license. We could then include the current list of attribution and marking requirements as an example of best practices rather than as a specific legal requirement. This would potentially give licensees more freedom to adapt attribution to their particular circumstances, while maintaining the spirit and purpose of the requirements. Is this a proposal we should pursue? Why or why not? _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Sarah Pearson 2012-05-11T22:32:10 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5382 <pre>I would like to discuss the scope of ShareAlike in 4.0d1. I believe that ShareAlike should do the following things: A. Protect the ability to quote and critique under fair use within a ShareAlike work, to the degree that fair use / fair dealing exists in any given jurisdiction. B. Prevent the mixing of ShareAlike and non-sharealike materials in the same work or usage, encouraging work to be placed under ShareAlike in its entirety whenever it possibly can be and preventing its use where it cannot be. I'm trying to understand the extent to which it is possible for SA to achieve this in principle and the extent to which 4.0d1 does so in practice. Given this I have tried to think through how ShareAlike works in the following scenarios: 1. A commercial blogger posts a short science fiction story by another author on their blog in order to comment on it. The blog is licensed BY-NC-SA. This should be allowed under Fair Use (just about) as criticism. 2. A student writes an essay critiquing a famous and still copyrighted artwork. They include illustrations of the artwork to support their critique. The essay is licensed BY-SA. This should be allowed under Fair Use as criticism and academic use. 3. A games company licenses (for the sake of argument) the Star Wars franchise and produce a role-playing game rulebook featuring the characters and locations from that franchise. The game is licensed BY-SA *but* it is made clear that any text or images mentioning the characters and settings of the franchise are *not* BY-SA. This results in a work that is hybrid free/non-free, but then the authors do not have any option to create a free work. 4. A games company designs their own generic fantasy setting (think Lord of The Rings / Narnia / Game Of Thrones / etc.) and produce a role-playing game rulebook featuring the characters and locations from that franchise. The game is licensed BY-SA *but* it is made clear that any text or images mentioning the characters and settings are *not* BY-SA. This results in a work that is non-free, and the authors have *deliberately* structured the work to make it so. BY-SA should not allow this. 5. An author or magazine use a BY-SA image as an illustration for a story or article. The story or article is "all rights reserved". This results in a non-free work using a BY-SA work as part of its presentation / value proposition. BY-SA should not allow this. It is the minimal case that photographers, Wikipedia, and Drew would all need to be covered by BY-SA. So: Firstly, have I described these scenarios correctly with regard to BY-NC-SA 4.0d1 and the ability to use copyrighted work under Berne? Secondly, how can 1 and 2 be differentiated from 4 and 5, and does anyone other than me feel they should they be? And thirdly, what about 3? Thanks. - Rob. _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Rob Myers 2012-05-08T21:13:37 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5345 <pre>A nicer version of this message, with formatting and links to sources, is available at http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2301. You probably want to read it there. I’ve said a number of times that I wouldn’t engage in discussions about the NC clause in the future. However, during the comment period for the 4.0 licenses I have to give some feedback – not about the NC clause, but about another section of the license that is critically important to the functioning of the NC clause, vague and imperfect as it may be. The current version of the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license, Section 8, Subsection e, reads: 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. This means that the extra “add-ons” organizations try to attach to CC licenses are, according to the license itself, prohibited and meaningless in the context of the license. The most popular of these add-ons is one in which institutions define “Noncommercial Use.” The way these statements are included on websites next to the link to the CC license would lead you to believe that they are somehow incorporated into the license by reference. Not true, it turns out – in fact, the license explicitly prohibits a Licensor from trying to do that. Now, why would CC want to prohibit people from providing local definitions of Noncommercial Use? Let’s take a look at two concrete examples of the prohibited add-ons. First up, the relevant language from MIT OCW’s add-on: Materials may be used by individuals, institutions, governments, corporations, or other business whether for-profit or non-profit so long as the use itself is not a commercialization of the materials or a use that is directly intended to generate sales or profit. Next up, the MITE add-on: MITE understands that the Noncommercial (NC) restriction on this Creative Commons license precludes institutional use of the materials, including by governments, corporations, public entities, and businesses, whether for-profit or non-profit. So here are two almost perfectly contradictory definitions of Noncommercial Use. I’m not passing judgement on which is better – for sake of my argument it doesn’t matter. The salient point is that the definitions contradict each other. Both these sites (MIT OCW and MITE) use the ShareAlike clause together with the NC clause. The SA clause includes the statement, “You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of this License.” This language forcibly relicenses materials remixed into a BY-NC-SA work under the same (BY-NC-SA in this case) license as the original work IF the work is to be distributed or publicly performed. For this reason, BY-NC-SA works (like MIT OCW) and BY-SA works (like Wikipedia) cannot be remixed – the SA clauses of the BY-NC-SA and the BY-SA license conflict, both trying to relicense the other under its own terms. (If this is confusing, please play my CC licensing remix gamewhich will help you master the the underlying concepts.) Consequently, if CC licenses were to allow local definitions of NC to be incorporated into a BY-NC-SA license by reference, we would frequently – but not always – find ourselves in a situation where two BY-NC-SA licensed materials could not be remixed because they would actually be licensed under different licenses due to the language of the add-on. To be more concrete, if add-ons were legal you could not remix MIT and MITE content because they would be licensed under two different licenses, even though on the surface they appear to be the same license. And you thought NC was confusing before! In the current draft of the 4.0 licenses the Section 8 Subsection e language has been removed (see this handy comparison chart.) If something similar is not put back in its place in the proposed new Additional Terms section, CC will not have six licenses – it will have infinitely many licenses. Talk about license proliferation! Consequently, I believe the 4.0 licenses MUST INCLUDE language similar in function to the current Section 8 Subsection e. Frankly, the whole situation is reminiscent of the entangled problems of immigration reform in the US. Since the Feds refuse to act on the issue, individual states are acting in ways that are not entirely harmonious (or necessarily sensible). Similarly, if CC continues to refuse to define the NC term, individual Licensors are each going to want to provide their own definition. However, under no circumstances should they be allowed to do that. People sometimes wonder why I talk about 4R permissions, asking if “revise” and “remix” are really that different. Revise is something you do to the inside of a resource. Remix is combining two or more resources together into a new work. If MIT and MITE were allowed to define NC locally, remix with other BY-NC-SA works would cease to be permitted for their works, but revise would continue to be permitted. License incompatibilities are the primary reason why there are 4 Rs instead of just 3. David _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> David Wiley 2012-05-03T00:45:15 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5323 <pre>Several authors in the free software movement (most particularly the members of the FSF) are reluctant to use DFCW licensing (CC-BY-SA, or CC-BY) because, in that way, their works of opinion could be freely modified by others, which could be used to distort their opinions [1]. However, despite of the obvious reason for their decision, such a position has been perceived as incongruent by free culture advocates [2]. A way to be able to freely license a work, while guaranteeing that the integrity of the authors of opinion works and their ideas is upheld, should be of great concern for the following versions of CC-BY-SA licenses. My idea to do it would be to add a mandatory disclaimer for derivative CC-BY-SA works of opinion that states whether the derivative work has been stated by the original author to be in the spirit of the original work or not. In the negative case, the derivative work must clearly state that the derivative work's ideas are solely from the author of the derivative work, not necessarily from the original author. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses [2]: http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/04/rantifesto/ - Carlos Solís _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Carlos Solís 2012-04-29T16:24:15 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5265 <pre>Dear all, in some places of the new version there is a text like that: ---------------- [Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:] 2(b)(1)(ii) other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work and, for the avoidance of doubt, patent, trademark, privacy, personality and publicity rights shall not be considered ancillary rights. ------- This is really deceptive and ambiguous IMHO, as the statement says that: (1) Licensor waives "other ancilliary rights", and (2) Licensor retains "all other ancilliary rights". How can one make difference, where there are simply "other ancilliary rights", and where there are "all other ancilliary rights"? The same again goes in the following text: -------------------- [From Section 2(b) Other Rights]: (1) To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to reasonably exercise the rights granted to You under this Public License, Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert: (i) Licensor’s moral rights in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other moral rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work... -------------------------- There, again, one should make difference: whether there are Licensor's moral rights or Licensor's "other" moral rights... Maybe it should be corrected in some way or other, or further elaborated to avoid ambiguity. Sincerely, Alex Evtyushkin Institute of Information Society, the partner of Creative Commons in Russia _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Evtyushkin Alexander 2012-04-20T10:22:02 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5193 <pre>The proposal is that the Non Commercial License or a re-branded successor should be defined by reference to clear categories of commercial activity which a licensor wants to reserve. This will promote clarity for both licensors and licensees on what each can expect from the other. This will also make the licences more certain from a legal perspective so that it will serve both legal and community goals. The definition would list the kinds of commercial transactions and related actions that are clearly defined in the vast majority of legal systems. Proposed Definition: *commercial use is the transactional use of the work; that is selling, bartering, or letting the copyright work or including the work in a paid for advertisement (and the like).* The words "and the like" are in brackets in the proposed definition because it is debatable whether there should be strictly closed list or a list with a little room for implicit extensions. Courts are familiar with the exercise in which they must gauge whether something belongs on a list of allowed or prohibited actions according to its resemblance to the items on the list and are generally quite good at it. Users may feel that a list that is not closed introduces too much uncertainty. Are there other clearly identified transactions that belong on the list? The issue of whether NC/CRR should permit DRM/TPM's is closely related but is perhaps better discussed in a thread on whether the licences suite should treat DRM/TPM's differently in different licences. If NC/CRR were to preclude the applying DRM/TPM to the work then I suggest that the definition of the commercial rights to be reserved is not the best place to set out the prohibition. </pre> Andrew Rens 2012-04-13T20:24:20 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5170 <pre>We tried to analyze whether we can safely use NC-licenses and the result was: almost no organisation can do that... Whenever a charity or non-profit uses an image, it obtains a commercial advantage by saving the money it would (and does) otherwise spend on image license fees. It is furthermore not clear, which level of immediacy the "primarily" refers to: week, project, reporting, year, saving the world... Many actions or re-use of licensed works may in the short term be viewed to be simply directed towards a commercial advantage, whereas in the longer term, one may be able to claim that this is an action towards some ultimate, abstract goal (peace, happiness). There are valid uses of NC, like private fan-dom sites, so I am not arguing that the NC license is worthless. However, I would very much like to see the license being rebranded/relabeled. In our own experience, trying to convince more people to release their works, which they do not intend to make any money off, under an open content license, we almost always get into a quagmire of misunderstanding. First. * "But Wikipedia use the Creative Commons Non-commercial license!" (no it does not, Wikipedia is Open Content, the NC-license is closed content) * So Wikipedia is commercial? (yes, the Wikimedia Foundation, like almost all charities or non-profits, are commercial entities. But in fact this does not count for the license at all, works under an NC license can be used by non-profits as well as huge for-profit companies...) * "I am non-commercially minded!" (Well then the NC is the wrong one for you as a licensor, it is intended for the commercially minded ones who want and do make a profit from selling their works...) * "But non-commercial is good, it is better than commercial!" (...) -------- Bottomline: I believe the "non-commercial" tag of the NC license SOUNDS much too attractive for normal people. They associate it with something that is more desirable than the truly open content licenses. Proposals rebrand the closed content licenses under a less positive brand than CC: +1 But if that is unlikely, just renaming the counter-intuitively named "non-commercial" license would be great advantage in correcting the false perception of the NC-license. I proposed to rename it to "commercial rights reserved" license and believe this captures the action much better. The renaming would have no detrimental effects, since the actual legal texts could remain almost unchanged, and the NC-3.0 license and the CRR-4.0 license would remain compatible. Any better proposals? Gregor _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Gregor Hagedorn 2012-04-13T09:32:37 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5156 <pre>A few weeks ago I skimmed all 912 emails concerning DRM/TPM sent to cc-licenses or cc-community for the history of those lists, and am embarrassed to report that of the two proposals currently listed on http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Technical_protection_measures parallel distribution had been discussed far more thoroughly than I had recalled, and while not discussed thoroughly, I had completely forgotten previous discussion of circumvention, even though I'm the one who brought it up. You can download only the DRM emails at http://gondwanaland.com/tmp/cclists-drm.mbox.gz -- I merely downloaded, concatenated, and filtered monthly archives that are publicly available. Many of the 43 responses to early list comments on 3.0 drafts from Mia Garlick (CC lawyer at the time) concern TPM, see http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004029.html I think the current circumvention permission proposal (basically the relevant half of the GPLv3 language) is still worth exploring further </pre> Mike Linksvayer 2012-04-11T00:41:42 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5153 <pre>With the expansion of rights licensed expanding to include database rights, I'd like to propose also adding other sui generis rights, specifically semiconductor mask rights and design rights. These were both recently added to a modified version of the Apache license to come up with the Solderpad Open License [1]. 1. http://solderpad.org/licenses/SHL-0.51/ Regards, Christopher _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Christopher Covington 2012-04-11T10:59:59 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5137 <pre> Relatedly, in the draft, I liked this language: "If the resource referenced by the URI in (v) includes the information contained in (i) – (iii), above, You need only include the URI to satisfy those requirements." In the most frequent use case I've seen in the wild (flickr reuse) this requirement in the old licenses was frequently violated, and the new language seems to preserve the intent of the old license (reasonable attribution) while making compliance simpler and more likely. Luis _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Luis Villa 2012-04-10T04:57:33 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5132 <pre> +1000. See also MPL 2.0 for similar language. Luis _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Luis Villa 2012-04-09T23:00:58 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5127 <pre> Hi &lt; at &gt;ll I use to distribute my works under CC-By-SA 3.0u&lt;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/&gt;avoiding to add the NC Tag &lt;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/&gt; for the case that any&lt; at &gt;ne liked and were able to publish them in other formats.... and exploit them commercially. Indeed, in my main work I added a [Written Note] stating this, asking to whoever that want to make commercial uses, to contact *first* with me. This will share the economic benefits, if any, -with The Author(s)- while maintaining the current (Author's) conditions... and the subsequent Freedoms for Readers, Modifiers, etc. The *'+'* Sign could be added to easily indicate that any condition should be modified (waived/added) through a PRIOR contact -and (written) agreement- with The Author(s)... That is CC By-SA+, or CC By-ND+... and so on... _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Gonzalo San Gil 2012-04-09T10:23:12 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5125 <pre>General Points ============== * I agree with Luis, the new license looks great. It is very easy to read. * I am concerned about the various explicit statements that the license makes about not covering other rights (especially patents) in the light of OSI's discussion of CC0: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/000231.html It may be best simply to mention model releases. * I am concerned about the scope of ShareAlike, as indicated by my notes on 1.d below. Both from the point of view being a strong proponent of copyleft, and from the point of view of practicality. Specific Points =============== * Preamble:"To the extent this Public License may be considered a contract," I assume this careful phrasing will avoid the license being considered a contract in the US: http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ * Preamble: "This Public License does not affect third party rights in the Licensed Work." What does this mean? How could the license affect third party rights? * Preamble: "Additionally, You are responsible for complying with other laws that may apply" I assume that this doesn't fall foul of the same problem as the UK OGL, which mentions *specific* *national* laws: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2011-October/000064.html * 1.d: "The Licensed Work may be accompanied by or integrated with other work, content or material not covered by this Public License, such as public domain content or works owned by third parties." What does "accompanied" mean? What does "integrated" mean? Is "may be" a warning or a grant of permission? On the one hand this makes clear that reblogging or critiquing ARR work in a CC context isn't an attempt to CC license it. Which is good. On the other, it does make it clear that BY-SA is a *very* weak copyleft, going further than the FDL and more akin to the Open Gaming License in its ability to interleave non-free material. Which may be bad. If BY-SA is very weak copyleft and may accompany ARR work, what does this mean for "stronger copyleft", as per Drew, Wikipedia and the FSF? And how would this affect GPL compatibility? * 2.a.3: "where the Licensed Work is a database, in addition to the above, extract and reuse contents of the Licensed Work" This creates an incompatible copyleft with the ODbL. At present, ODbL data may be used to produce BY-SA works. * 2.b.1 "To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to reasonably exercise the rights granted to You under this Public License, Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert: (i) Licensor’s moral rights in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other moral rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; and" I like this. Is the fact that it creates an uneven standard internationally, where previous versions harmonized things more, a problem or a valid response to moral rights as a limit on free culture? What "other moral rights"? I can't parse the second part of (i). * 3.a.1: "If You Share the Licensed Work or an Adaptation, You must provide, in any reasonable manner based on the medium or means You are using..." Reasonable as defined by the licensor or by the licensee? Unreasonable licensor attribution demands have been a problem for Wikipedia iirc. * 4.a, from the notes: "Removed from this draft the portion of 3.0 Section 4(a) disallowing restrictions to be added to license (also removed from SA provision). These will be addressed in Additional Terms proposal in later 4.0 draft." I would urge caution in allowing additional restrictions, and draw people's attention to the GPLv3's handling of them: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html "All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term." * 5.a "If You fail to comply with any conditions of this Public License, this Public License will terminate automatically" Is it worth having a GPLv3-style compliance window? - Rob. _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Rob Myers 2012-04-07T17:12:14 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5113 <pre>Hi everyone, Thanks for your contributions this first week of public discussion on 4.0(d1). A quick note to say I'm a bit behind clearing the moderation queue due to a long holiday weekend. All posts will be moderated progressively over the course of today -- apologies to those of you who have posted and are waiting to see those appear on list. We'll do our best to clear the queue at least once a day from this point forward. Also, a reminder that we'd like to use this email list for concrete proposals for, or questions about, the 4.0 draft. If/when more general questions or discussions points are raised, please continue to post those to cc-community as Mike requested during the pre-publication period. Thanks! Diane _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Diane Peters 2012-04-09T16:35:56 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5112 <pre>Hey everyone, I just wanted to post a few of my thoughts on the NC license from the perspective of a musician, not a legal scholar. I started releasing my music under BY-NC-SA, which I gradually shed down to BY. The decision to drop the NC clause was definitely a somewhat agonizing one. I didn't really want to give away my rights for licensing music for actual commercial enterprises for free (a movie placement, commercials, etc), but it was obviously fine for someone to use my music in the background of a family vacation slideshow on YouTube. In the end, it was the smart move for me to drop it, since the increase in exposure was huge, but the tradeoff seemed unnecessary. It seems to me there's a clear (if hard to define legally) line between the outright commercial use of a work, and the work being used in a free-spiritied way but being included on a for-profit website. Another significant issue for me, which I discovered only later, was that CC-BY is incompatible with performing rights organizations. Logically, as a musician, it seems like I should be able to license my music outside of Creative Commons and collect the royalties from that. For instance, someone comes to me and wants to use my music in a commercial, but they need a traditional license because they can't provide attribution. I'm not able to collect royalties on that, since CC-BY works can't be registered with PROs. Again, being ignorant of all things legalese, there may be a good reason for this, but it seems really arbitrary to me. tl;dr: Liberalize NC. </pre> Josh Woodward 2012-04-08T00:01:12 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5100 <pre> While not criticising the efforts of the CC team with respect to licences for the creative arena, I believe there are still important issues with respect to licences for data &amp; non-creative works that CC is not addressing as they should, if they intend the licences to be used for a data commons as well. CC is still focused on creative works and a creative commons (which is not unreasonable), and still fails to address (and I believe actively misinforms) those organisations looking to use CC licences for data. Even NZGOAL, in its discussion of moral rights, suggests that organisations releasing data respect the moral rights of authors, and somewhat verbosely accepts that moral rights do not apply to datasets released under CC licences in New Zealand, although I believe this is somewhat masked in a legalese description of what these rights are that don't really apply.   CC misleads people &amp; organisations considering which licence to use to release data with respect to Moral Rights. The implication in the licences is that they apply equally to creative works and data, including user's Moral Rights. This is not a fair or realistic interpretation of Moral Rights &amp; related Copyright legislation. In New Zealand, the Copyright Act does not apply to computer works, such as data. See this guide from the NZ Copyright Council: http://www.copyright.org.nz/html/blob.php/Moral+rights.May2007.pdf?attach=true&amp;document=339&amp;filetypecode=1&amp;fileId=105 which states: "Creators of sound recordings and computer-related works have no moral rights under the Copyright Act.".  Where does CC tell you that circumstance is a risk at all?  Why do they not? In Australia, unlike New Zealand, Copyright can apply to computer works, but only programs, not information (which includes data). Moral rights, however, can only be held by individuals. Most data is released by organisations, not individuals, no moral rights can apply in such cases. See these guidelines from the Australian Copyright Council, at: http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/15053623324f42cf09a556f.pdf http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/20373146284f39afed9ca39.pdf There are also substantial differences between Europe &amp; the US with respect to moral rights. In the US, moral rights are only applicable to visual works, and other rights such as copyright &amp; defamation law are deemed applicable instead of moral rights. Where does CC explain to potential users that data is subject to different legal protection from creative works, and users should consider this before choosing a licence? The CC4 draft now explicitly allows changes to works: "making modifications technically necessary to exercise rights granted under this Public License is not an Adaptation," yet in the arena of data, rather than creative works, such technical modifications can alter or distort data to where actual misrepresentation occurs. For example the loss of precision in data where a 64bit dataset is used on 32bit precision systems, or the simplification of complex, fine scale data to fit a coarser grained application, can significantly alter fine scale trends which may the the main point of interest in these data. Any re-use of such modified data should not be supported, and "moral rights" are generally not available in such cases to defend the rights &amp; reputation of the licensor. I believe CC is doing data providers a mis-service by informing them differently, and encouraging them to use licences designed for creative works, based on legislation which is, partly at least, inapplicable. The law recognises distinctions between data (information) &amp; creative works. Any licence that fails to do the same needs careful consideration before using it. This is why the UK Govt released a specific Open Government Licence, broadly consistent with CC, but with some important additions. This is why there is an Open Data Commons, quite distinct from a Creative Commons, with an Open Database Licence which recognises that data is not a creative work, is not covered by law in the same way as creative works, and is treated differently by consumers compared to creative works. All of which suggests that a licence designed for creative works is not necessarily appropriate for data, and more considered alternatives do exist. Brent Wood _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> pcreso-+3f9519Zn4bQT0dZR+AlfA< at >public.gmane.org 2012-04-05T22:49:59 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5067 <pre>hi, With the new licenses is it possible to ask for the source to be provided in works that are licensed to allow derivatives? I know this issue mainly from the field of books. Now that open publishing (etc) is gaining enormous popularity I see more and more 'open books' made available in PDF only or mobi only formats etc. GPL requires source as a pre-condition for 3 of its 4 freedoms I believe and I think that is for good reason. Derivatives require source. Without source derivatives are not realistic possibilities and PDF or other releases are nothing more than a 'mechanical' form of copyright protection. I would actually like to see a source requirement in ND as well since it is impossible to transcode/transform into other formats sometimes without it. I am guessing that would be a less popular position however. I also understand source doesnt apply to all media equally. However a 'where applicable the source must be provided in a standardised and reusable format' would help matters a lot... adam _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> adam 2012-04-06T16:11:19 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5062 <pre>Hi all, Section 3(a)(3) of CC-by-nc-sa-v4.0draft1 states: [...] [...] This is the infamous anti-DRM (or anti-TPM, if you prefer) clause, probably the most controversial part of CC-v3.0 licenses. It does not seem to have changed significantly. As I said previously [1], I strongly recommend that this clause be enhanced, so that it *explicitly* allows parallel distribution. [1] http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006582.html I hope this suggestion may be implemented in the next draft. </pre> Francesco Poli 2012-04-05T17:56:20 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5058 <pre>Hi again, Section 3(c)(1) of CC-by-nc-sa-v4.0draft1 states: [...] [...] I personally suggest to *not* port v4.0 licenses to specific jurisdictions. I think the right approach is striving to create international licenses that work well in as many jurisdictions as possible, without the need of porting them to each local jurisdiction. I also reiterate the recommendation to introduce explicit one-way conversion clauses * that allow redistribution of CC-by-sa-v4.0-licensed works under the terms of the GNU GPL version 2 or any later version * that allow redistribution of CC-by-v4.0-licensed works under the terms of the zlib license: http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html See my previous message [1] for more details. [1] http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006512.html I hope these suggestions may be implemented in the next draft. </pre> Francesco Poli 2012-04-05T18:05:18 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5057 <pre>Thanks very much to Diane Peters &amp; the CC team on the draft CC-BY-NC- SA. Good work, I appreciate the background provided, and the continued support for NC. I would like to propose a change in the definition of "noncommercial". Currently, this reads: (f) NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Work by digital file- sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange. suggested change to: (f) NonCommercial means not intended for re-sale or re-use of the Licensed Work for private monetary compensation (for example, as a means to attract advertising revenue). For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Work by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange. For the avoidance of doubt, educational use - teaching and learning - is Noncommercial, and permitted by this Public License, while including the content in a package intended for sale to educational institutions for profit is Commercial, and prohibited by this Public License. Web-based or other discovery services that rely on advertising revenue, such as search engines, may use advertising IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR SERVICES in connecting searchers to this content; this does not constitute commercial use of the content. Advertising that constitutes exploitation of the content for commercial purposes, such as advertising inserted into a derivative, advertising that readers are forced to watch before viewing the content, creating the impression of sponsorship, or advertising that implies that the creator endorses the advertised product, constitutes commercial use and is prohibited by this license. Background: After re-reading the Executive Summary of the Defining Noncommercial report, it strikes me that part of the problem with the overly broad definition of noncommercial stems from lack of understanding of copyright by most of the population (as noted in this report). The idea that you cannot use a work if what you are doing is commercial in nature, from my perspective, suggests that copyright is not just about expression of ideas, but rather about ideas themselves. I think this sets a bad precedent, and it would be a good idea for Creative Commons to steer away from this. best, Heather Morrison hgmorris-z1KUqvL5UUQ&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org _______________________________________________ List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community </pre> Heather Morrison 2012-04-05T01:29:34 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses/5055 <pre>Hello everybody, Section 3(a)(1) of CC-by-nc-sa-v4.0draft1 includes the following part: [...] [...] where information specified in (i) - (iii) is basically, the author's name or pseudonym, the Attribution Parties, and the title of the Work. I'm still not convinced that this clause meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines. See my previous comment [1]. [1] http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006602.html Since I don't think that a license can (allow a licensor to) forbid an accurate credit and meet the DFSG at the same time, I recommend that this clause be dropped entirely from CC-v4.0 licenses, or, at least, amended so that it says: | You must, to the extent reasonably practicable, remove the | information specified in (i) – (iii) above if the information is | inaccurate or misleading and the removal is requested by Licensor I hope this suggestion may be implemented in the next draft. </pre> Francesco Poli 2012-04-05T17:50:04 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.org.creativecommons.licenses