[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: CCPL-by

Hash: SHA1

Jeremy Hankins wrote:
| Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:
|>Francesco Poli wrote:
|>>] If you distribute, [...] the Work or any Derivative Works or
|>>] Collective Works, You must [...] give the Original Author credit
|>>] reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying
|>>] the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if
|>>] supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; in the case of a
|>>] Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the
|>>] Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original
|>>] Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original
|>>] Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner;
|>>] provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or
|>>] Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any
|>>] other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least
|>>] as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.
|>>(it seems that credit must be given with many data --not only with
|>>the name of the original work copyright holder--)
|>This is extremely well designed and just fine.  :-) The use of the
|>word "comparable" in the "prominent" clause even prevents the OPL
|>problem.  This clause is so broad and general that it's GPL-compatible
|>(though the earlier clause isn't...)
| 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.

| also requires that you preserve the original title along with the
| original author's name.  I'd say this is non-free.  Not because it also
| requires preserving the title (that I see no problem with), but because
| it (and the original author) must be as prominently displayed as the new
| title/author.
|>This clause isn't going to be popular, since it contains express
|>warranties (it's still DFSG-free, of course):
|>] By offering the Work for public release under this License, Licensor
|>] represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's knowledge
|>] after reasonable inquiry:
|>] Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the
|>] license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the
|>] rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to pay
|>] any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other
|>] payments; The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark,
|>] publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third
|>] party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other
|>] tortious injury to any third party.
| Does this also require that folks who make modifications also so
| represent & warrant when the (re)distribute?  Does that change things?
I believe it does not require that.  It explicitly states elsewhere in
the license that all licenses are from the original Licensor, not
sublicensed.  It's certainly free; it's just not going to be popular
among authors!

|>One more point.
|>This last clause is non-free on its face, because it restricts
|>trademark usage rights which are not otherwise restricted by law:
|>]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. Any
|>]permitted use will be in compliance with Creative Commons'
|>]then-current trademark usage guidelines, as may be published on its
|>]website or otherwise made available upon request from time to time.
|>But it's probably rendered moot by this line earlier:
|>]Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no
|>]warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work.
|>Because Creative Commons is not a party to the license, it can't
|>insert restrictions on its trademarks into the license.  (The
|>preceding paragraph, however, still ought to be rewritten to say what
|>it's supposed to mean.)
| I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Taken literally, the
| licensor is doing Creative Commons a favor by enforcing their trademark
| (via copyright) for them.

Right.  This is what I was saying: Creative Commons isn't a party to the
license, so they can't complain if the licensor ignores that clause and
*doesn't* (mis)enforce the Creative Commons trademark via copyright.

However, I just realized that the other parties to the license *could*
complain, so that makes it a non-free requirement.  :-P  For instance,
the licensor could complain about the behavior of a licensee (although
normally he has no right to) with regard to the Creative Commons
trademark, and use that as a license cancellation excuse.

So, if those clauses are actually part of the license (and they look
like it, although I think they weren't supposed to be), it is non-free.  :-P

I'm sure CC didn't really intend this; I don't know who to write to to
tell them "Fix your license!", though.
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: