On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:51:32 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > I still have to read the final text (I am not so fast!): hence I don't > know whether there are differences with respect to the draft I > analyzed (but I've been told that there are). OK, I dumped the final text of CC-by-sa-v3.0/us and did a rapid wdiff run against its latest draft. There actually are differences, but they seem to be mainly of cosmetic nature. You can find the license text at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode As far as the clauses I previously quoted are concerned, the final phrasing is as follows. Section 1(b) states: | b. "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is | listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has | been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent | to this License, including, at a minimum, because that license: | (i) contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect | as the License Elements of this License; and, (ii) explicitly | permits the relicensing of derivatives of works made available | under that license under this License or either a Creative | Commons unported license or a Creative Commons jurisdiction | license with the same License Elements as this License. This section is a bit rephrased and clarified, but the substance is basically unchanged. The issues I raised still hold. Section 4(a) states, in part: | If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor | You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective | Work any credit as required by Section 4(c), 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 | credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested. This part is basically unchanged (apart from some minor cosmetic word substitutions) and hence does not make a difference for the issues I raised. Section 4(b) states, in part: | b. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or | publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under: (i) the | terms of this License; (ii) a later version of this License with | the same License Elements as this License; (iii) either the | Creative Commons (Unported) license or a Creative Commons | jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) | that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. | Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (Unported)); (iv) a Creative Commons | Compatible License. This clause is slightly rephrased, but has the same meaning (and thus the same issues) as the draft. Section 4(c) states, in part: | in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a | minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all | contributing authors of the Derivative Work or Collective | Work appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner | at least as prominent as the credits for the other | contributing authors. which is word for word identical to the draft (and thus poses the same exact issues). I also dumped the final text of CC-by-sa-v3.0 (unported) and run wdiff against the US-specific version. The two final texts show major differences (even in the number and ordering of the sections). As a consequence, the unported license requires a separate analysis and cannot be easily treated in a differential manner with respect to the US-specific license (the only one that was released as public draft back on 9 February...). You can find the full text here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode I hope I will find the time to review this license, too... -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpSC6UVj21Ea.pgp
Description: PGP signature