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

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

@ 04/04/2004 03:57 : wrote Nathanael Nerode :

 Here are some comments on the draft summary: I think I'd make these
> 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
one of the definitions on "comparable" (according to Google) is:
An abbreviation for "comparable properties"; used for comparative purposes in the appraisal process. Comparables are properties like the property under consideration; they have reasonably the same size, location, and amenities and have recently been sold. Comparables help the appraiser determine the approximate fair market value of the subject property. It applies to real state, but applies to other goods, too. Like displays of authorship.
 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
> - 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.


> 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.


Reply to: