I'm writing about the free/non-free status of the Creative Commons
Attribution license, version 2.0 :
Last year this list discussed the version 1.0 license, and concluded that
it was non-free :
Version 2.0 looks almost the same to me, so I assume that the concerns
remain. I would be glad to see the CC-BY license inch a little closer
towards "free" status.
The Debian-legal page above includes this justification (among others) for
the non-free status:
It appears (though it's slightly unclear) that 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).
This seems to be based on this email from Jeremy Hankins:
Where Jeremy wrote:
This says you can't put your own name in big, bold letters on the
cover while putting the original author's name in a footnote. It also
requires that you preserve the original title along with the original
author's name. I'd say this is non-free. Not because it also requires
preserving the title (that I see no problem with), but because it (and
the original author) must be as prominently displayed as the new
The license doesn't say that the name must be prominent. It says that it
must be "at least as prominent" as other credit. Last week I asked the
cc-community list if I could just have an appendix titled "contributors"
and put everyone's names on it. They said that should be fine.
Now, back to this page:
The third justification refers to "the trademark notice on the license's
website where it is not obvious if this notice is part of the license."
I'm pretty sure the trademarrk notice is not part of the license. What
would you suggest the CC team do to make this sufficiently obvious? I will
relay your suggestion to the CC team. They're a nice bunch. Who knows?
They might just make the alteration.
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.