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 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.