Re: CCPL-by

[Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:
> Francesco Poli wrote:

>> ] 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...)

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
also requires that you preserve the original title along with the
original author's name.  I'd say this is non-free.  Not because it also
requires preserving the title (that I see no problem with), but because
it (and the original author) must be as prominently displayed as the new
title/author.

> 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.

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

> 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.)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Taken literally, the
licensor is doing Creative Commons a favor by enforcing their trademark
(via copyright) for them.

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