Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
I've been following this list for almost 3 years now. I've read a lot of
things that have upset me, seen poorly formulated arguments, and lots of
unnecessary flaming. I've only contributed a few times in the past, but
reading this Draft Summary really set me off. Yes, I saw the debate on this
when it came around, but I was under the impression that someone was working
with CC to fix the supposed issues... this sounds as if we have given it up.
So, here is why I think this summary is total bunk (DRM clause asside) and
why I believe debain-legal would be laughed out of the conference room if it
sat down with the CC lawyers and tried ot aruge these points.
You don't need to listen to me, I'm just a lowly 2L interested in software and
the free software movement. But I really think debian-legal needs to rethink
some of the absolutest positions it takes and recognize the law is not like
software... it will never be perfect... it is an art of compromise. I
advise against letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.
> 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.
--- snip ---
> A more specific example for Debian would be a programmer who creates
> documentation licensed under Attribution 2.0. He could require that
> references in derived versions to design or implementation decisions he made
> for the program be removed.
Are you saying the Attribution License is non-DSFG because the original author
can say "take my name out of the derived work"??? That's crazy! If you
design a program and then say, this was designed by Programmer Joe, and
Programmer Joe, embarressed by the program, says he wants his name taken out,
the court will order you to take away the attribution. It is against the law
to say someone did something if they did not. This is just a true under the
GPL as Attribution 2.0, they just spelled it out in the Attribution 2.0 to
make litigation easier.
> "comparable authorship credit"
> This could mean either "credit for comparable authorship" or "comparable
> credit for authorship". The first interpretation would allow crediting
> an author with all other authors who have made similar contributions.
> The second would require crediting the author where any author is
> credited, even if the level of contribution is not comparable.
Its amazing how adding words to a phrase changes its meaning, even more so
when changing the order. "Comparable Authorship Credit" looks/sounds/means
nothing like "comparable credit for authorship"... come on, the words are
switched around and there is a "for" added. The law just doesn't work this
way... Contracts rely on subjective agreement between both parties and
mutual understanding of terms... otherwise we could find problems with every
contract under the sun. There has got to be a level of understanding
otherwise all of this breaks down. Read it the way that make sense.
> 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.
"These restrictions make excessive demands on both licensor and licensee, and
abridge their fair use rights to the Creative Commons trademarks." Cute, but
untrue. A trademark is not a copyright... and Fair Use rights are
significantly less with a trademark over a copyright. Let's be serious for
just a moment... do you really believe that Prof. Lessig is going to
encourage restriction of something in violation of established fair use
rights. Something tells me the thousands of hours spent preparing for
arguements before the Supreme Court should help us give the benefit of the
As for whether this applies to the license itself or not sounds OH SO VERY
familiar to those who say the GPL is unfree because it prohibits
modification. Which is not what the GPL does, it prohibits modification and
then claiming its still the GPL, you are free to take bits and parts of the
GPL and make your own license, just as you can with this license.
DRM is strange and I just don't know enough to comment right now. It seems
like an effort to block DRM is a good thing though... will debain-legal just
say "this is bad" or does it have recommendations as to how to fix this
Thats the end of the attribution license comments. I'm going to reserve
further comments to see if anyone cares about these concerns.
2nd Year - UW Law School
c: 206.498.8207 e: firstname.lastname@example.org
w: http://www.livejournal.com/users/economyguy/ <-- lazy mans blog
"Good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of
those who govern. The machinery of government is always subordinate to the
will of those who administer that machinery. The most important element of
government, therefore, is the method of choosing leaders."
-- Frank Herbert