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

Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element

On 2004-06-08 17:06:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> wrote:

a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike,
NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require
Attribution would also fall under this analysis.

Do any SA/NC/ND licences not include attribution?

This is not, of course, canonical for Debian, but it does provide some
suggestion that a group following guidelines similar to ours don't see
a serious problem with requiring attribution.

I don't think OSI follows similar guidelines. Notably, Debian does not require contributors to its process to use non-free software, defaults to "no consensus" (sometimes annoyingly so) and only produces licence summaries if driven.

Even so, I'd be amazed that OSI approved a licence that includes advertising in the licence and requires a program to do a particular act, were I not already convinced that OSI has gone bad. The Initiative Failed a long time ago, it seems. In the words of USPTO: Opensource is Dead.

[...] Apache 2.0 also requires attribution (in the NOTICE file).

I still think that licence looks like it has be considered case-by-case, as there is scope to abuse it.

3) As for the trademark clause [...] If A grants B the
rights outlined in Attribution 1.0, no increase in trademark
restrictions by the third-party Creative Commons could revoke those

Can you explain this more? How is it compliance with the licence not to obtain "prior written consent of Creative Commons" before using their trademark in a normally-permitted manner that is not "in compliance with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage guidelines" ?

My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/

Reply to: