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 fo</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 famou</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</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 fr</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 n</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 s</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 alm</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</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 right</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://wi</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. Logi</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 </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..</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 exch</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