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.
<snip>
> Suggestions:
>
> 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.