Re: CCPL-by

[Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:

>> 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.

So who gets to determine what's reasonable or biased?  The copyright
holder?  CC?  The only sane way out, IMHO, is not to try to pin that
down (i.e., leave it open for good behavior & social forces to solve).
But that seems to be what the CC license is trying to do.

>> 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.

Possibly so.  Worth contacting CC, once we're sure of our position,
then.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03