Re: CC-BY license.
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Thanks for the direct link. A lot of folks prefer the actual text to be
> posted as well, though. It makes things easier for those (like myself)
> who are behind slow connections or even read mail offline.
Heh. Just goes to show how different people will reach different
conclusions from the same premises. At OpenOffice.org you get told to be
succinct and provide links out of consideration for people on slow
connections. :-)
> Me too. Obviously some of the CC licenses aren't intended to be what
> the DFSG would pass as Free, but others (like this one) should in
> principle be Free, it seems to me. Maybe with a go-between who knows CC
> better than we do we can get the issues resolved.
It's worth a shot. Worst thing that could happen is, I hit a brick wall
and decide to work on something else :-)
> If the license said that as well it'd probably be fine. But the license
> does talk about the prominence of the author's names (from section 4b):
Yes, it talks about prominence. But it doesn't say "make it prominent". It
says "make it as prominent as...". So, having them all small seems ok.
> So I have to echo Andrew Suffield here. Frankly, I'm very uneasy with
> the whole idea of restrictions on how prominently parts of the document
> are displayed. But perhaps if what "comparable authorship credit" means
> were laid out more explicitly that would help.
Ok. At least I understand where the issues lie.
> Did you mean to skip the second issue -- that of having to purge names?
Yes, because I don't have a solution for it. At first sight, it looks like
it may be something where Debian and CC just won't agree.
> I agree that that's probably an oversight. The original reason for the
> issue, I think, is that a lot of us viewed the license via text-only
> browsers, where the distinctions based on background color weren't
> evident. When viewed that way it looked very much like part of the
> license. If it could be made explicit that the last couple of
> paragraphs (starting with "Creative Commons is not a party to this
> license") is not part of the license itself, this issue would go away.
Ray suggested a header that says "Creative Commons Trademark License -
Not Part of the Copyirght License". That sounds reasonable. That's what
I'll suggest.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
Reply to: