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

Re: DRAFT summary of the CC-by, feedback requested

Here are some comments on the draft summary: I think I'd make these changes
>It is likely that Creative Commons does not intend this to be a Free
"quite possible"?  I'm not sure about "likely".
>license in the sense of the DFSG.  However, since requiring attribution
>and credit is acceptable under the DFSG this summary was written to
>point out the other problems with this license.
Good sentence.  :-)

>- Credit to original author(s) must be as prominently displayed, and in
>  the same location, as credit to any other author.  This restricts
>  modification (DFSG 3).
It's not actually clear exactly what it requires due to the "comparable" 
authorship credits phrase.  I would say "It appears (although it's slightly 
unclear) that credit to the original author(s)..."

>- When any Licensor asks, their name(s) must be purged from the work.
>  This restricts modification (DFSG 3).
Probably you should note that this is  "all references" to their names.

>- Use of the "Creative Commons" trademark (or related trademark or logo)
>  is apparently a license violation, and thus grounds for a copyright
"appears to be a license violation"?  At this point we think that it actually 
isn't, but it still appears to be when one reads the license.  :-P

>  holder to revoke the license.  This violates the "Tentacles of Evil"
>  test[1] and can remove all freedoms the license grants.

>As the copyright holder you could use another license like the GPL or
>2-clause BSD.  These licenses are substantially different, though, so
>you should take care to understand the license before you make a choice.

If someone's planning to use the CC-by license, 2-clause BSD seems to be the 
closest fit among the standard licenses, so I'd just recommend that, not GPl.

>The clause mentioned in the final point above (dealing with the Creative
>Commons trademark) is possibly not intended to be part of the license at
"probably" not intended
>all, as when view in the original HTML with an appropriate browser it
That should be "when viewed"
>has a different color.
different background color
And when the HTML source is viewed, there is an HTML comment indicating that 
it is "not part of the license".

>  Making this distinction explicitly and in text
>form as well as HTML would solve this problem.

Reply to: