Re: CCPL-by

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Francesco Poli wrote:

> Hello everybody,
> I would like to know your opinion about the Creative Commons
> Attribution License 1.0:
> 
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
> 
> I searched the -legal archives, but I was not able to find a clear
> statement about this license...
> 
> Is there any consensus about its DFSG compliance? Is it DFSG-free?
I believe that it is.

> Is it GNU-GPL compatible?
Probably not; see below.

This bit irritates me, though:
]You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the 
]disclaimer of warranties. 
As usual, this needs a clause saying that it only refers to *accurate*
notices -- if they were soliciting comments on a revision, I'd ask them to
fix that.  But I think such clauses are not, in practice, ever interpreted
to require retaining inaccurate statements, so it's probably OK.

> My main concerns are:
> 
> ] You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
> ] publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
> ] that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with
> ] the terms of this License Agreement.
> 
> (that seems to me a bit like the unhappy anti-DRM clause of the GFDL...)
No, this is better designed.  The careful use of the phrase "in a manner
inconsistent with the terms of this license agreement" makes it OK; this 
prohibits using technical restrictions to distribute the work in ways which
would be prohibited (by the license) if done with legal restrictions.  Note
also that it only affectes distribution and "public" display or
performance.

However, this probably does render it not GPL compatible, since this appears
to be a restriction not in the GPL.

> and:
> 
> ] If you distribute, [...] the Work or any Derivative Works or
> ] Collective Works, You must [...] give the Original Author credit
> ] reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the
> ] name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied;
> ] the title of the Work if supplied; in the case of a Derivative Work, a
> ] credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g.,
> ] "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay
> ] based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be
> ] implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the
> ] case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit
> ] will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and
> ] in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship
> ] credit.
> 
> (it seems that credit must be given with many data --not only with the
> name of the original work copyright holder--)
This is extremely well designed and just fine.  :-)  The use of the word
"comparable" in the "prominent" clause even prevents the OPL problem.  This
clause is so broad and general that it's GPL-compatible (though the earlier
clause isn't...)

This clause isn't going to be popular, since it contains express warranties
(it's still DFSG-free, of course):
] By offering the Work for public release under this License, Licensor 
]represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's knowledge after
] reasonable inquiry: 
]Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the license 
]rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the rights granted 
]hereunder without You having any obligation to pay any royalties, 
]compulsory license fees, residuals or any other payments; 
]The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, publicity rights, 
]common law rights or any other right of any third party or constitute 
]defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious injury to any third 
]party. 


One more point.

This last clause is non-free on its face, because it restricts trademark
usage rights which are not otherwise restricted by law:
]Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is 
]licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark "Creative 
]Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the 
]prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in 
]compliance with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage guidelines, 
]as may be published on its website or otherwise made available upon request 
]from time to time.

But it's probably rendered moot by this line earlier:
]Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no warranty 
]whatsoever in connection with the Work.
Because Creative Commons is not a party to the license, it can't insert
restrictions on its trademarks into the license.  (The preceding paragraph,
however, still ought to be rewritten to say what it's supposed to mean.)

> Thanks for the great job in keeping Debian a 100% free software distro!
I wish it was...

-- 
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/