Re: [gnu.org #20241] Creative commons licenses
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 08:48, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > "Attribution"
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
> It is not immediately clear that the license's definition of
> "Derivative Work":
> | "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
> | and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
> | arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture
> | version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment,
> | condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast,
> | transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a
> | Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the
> | purpose of this License.
> includes the kind of *unlimited* modifications that are required for
> DFSG-freedom. The derivation processes enumerated here seem all to be
> ones that aim at preserving the "spirit" of the original work in
> another medium - what about ones that change the spirit but keep the
> Say for example that "Moby Dick" were released under this license.
> Would it be a "deriviative work" under the above definition if I took
> the text and subsituted "George W." for every "Ahab" and "Saddam" for
> every "Moby"?
> Is "any other form in which the Work may be recast" enough of a
> loophole here?
"recast, transformed, or adapted" seems like everything to me.
> The end of clause 4a sounds slightly fishy:
> | 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.
> as it seems potentially conflicting with clause 4b that says that you
> *must* credit the original author. So there is no way for a modifier
> to protect himself agains the possibly orneous burden of retroactively
> changing a derived work he has already finalized. To which degree a
> modifier is required to track down existing copies that do credit the
> original author is not clear.
I agree that this is potentially problematic.
My major problem with the CC-SA licenses is:
"You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform the Derivative Work with any technological measures
that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the
terms of this License Agreement."
What about encrypting with pgp -m?
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF