Re: CCPL-by

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

Jeremy Hankins wrote:

> 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.
Well, I think requiring non-biased attribution (say, I wrote one line and
Joe, the original author, wrote 3000 -- may I plaster my name all over the
book and relegate Joe to a miniscule footnote?) is reasonable and free. 
Requiring biased attribution (say, I wrote 3000 lines, and Joe, the
original author, wrote one -- may he force me to plaster his name all over
the book?) is neither reasonable nor free.

I'm just not really sure how much this license requires, or indeed what they
intended.  :-P  I think from the text that they probably intended "fair" or
"conventional" attribution, not excessive attribution, but I'm not sure. 
Maybe we should ask for clarification.

The OPL clearly requires biased attribution in some cases, which is
obviously non-free.  (I think the problem with the OPL is that they didn't
consider many forms of reuse, such as reusing selections, at all.)

<snip>

> 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,
Yeah, that's a good question.  :-P

> 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.
Indeed.  :-(  For instance, suppose Mr. Foo issued something under this
license.  If I decide to issue an annotated edition with annotations
explaining how evil Mr. Foo was, would he be able to simply shut me down by
demanding that I remove all the references to his name?  :-/

> 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.
There may be a fair amount licensed under it, and I think in this case they
may actually want it to be a Free license.  It is rather close, after all,
and attribution is generally considered an OK requirement for free
licenses.

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