Re: CCPL-by

[Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:

> | Well, no.  This says you can't put your own name in big, bold letters on
> | the cover while putting the original author's name in a footnote.  It

> Well, if you wrote the majority of the (new) book, and the original
> author wrote a tiny fragment of it, I wouldn't call those "comparable"
> authorship credits.  Maybe other people would?
>
> This is unsatisfyingly unclear.

I don't know, I think that may be exactly what they wanted.  After all,
the license is all about maintaining "attribution" -- i.e., ensuring
that folks who see derivative works know about all the people who
contributed to it.  Making sure that they see this is a non-free goal.
On the other hand, ensuring that the information is available to those
who want it isn't.  At least, that's where I draw the line.  I am open
to arguments to the contrary.

> |>] 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.
> |
> | Does this also require that folks who make modifications also so
> | represent & warrant when the (re)distribute?  Does that change things?

> I believe it does not require that.  It explicitly states elsewhere in
> the license that all licenses are from the original Licensor, not
> sublicensed.  It's certainly free; it's just not going to be popular
> among authors!

Ah, I just realized that this license is not a copyleft, so folks who
make modifications don't need to use those terms (or any of the others)
for their portion of the work.  Ok.

[Bit about using CC's name as grounds for termination of the license
snipped.]

Also, looking over the license more closely, I see this under 4a:

] If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You
] must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any
] reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If
] You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must,
] to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any
] reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.

I'm not clear what "the extent practicable" means here, but it sounds
like you may be required to purge the authors name/etc. from the work if
the author asks you to.  That sounds like another non-free point.


But since I don't know that CC really wants this to be a Free license,
I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to worry about these other nits -- at
least insofar as the DFSG is concerned.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03