Re: Local Creative Commons licences
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The Scottish drafters just removed clause 7 from their draft, and seem to have
> fixed the DRM clause. Take a look.
Yes, I'm quite happy about Jonathan Mitchell's response to comments
and will tell him so. For the points I made which he does not accept,
he explained his reasons in a clear manner. Well, the DRM stuff is
fixed as far as possible with the current legislation, yet keeps
the "no DRM lock-outs" intent safe IMO ;-)
> The Scottish version only subjects cases *against* the author to Scottish
> jurisdiction. Do we think this is free? I think it might be.
I'm not sure about that, but as the commentary states "it may be a
> The "Derogatory Treatment" sections are troublesome, but it appears to be hard
> to waive any part of the derogatory treatment rights under Scottish law...
Yes, I think fuzzy law is the problem there too. I don't think the
licence is adding problems to the situation. The great benefit of
the wording is a neat side-step of all the "author name purge"
trouble with the US licence while still having a clear "don't
> unfortunately, the license appears to apply derogatory treatment prohibitions
> on people who are not subject to Scottish law; it's hard to tell how that
> would actually play out in practice. [...]
The licence chooses law of Scotland, so I think it would apply to
this licence anyway, even if not stated.
> The Scottish CC (by) draft looks very close to DFSG-freeness, in fact closer
> than the regular CC licenses; I don't see any issues except the Derogatory
> Treatment business.
MJ Ray (slef), K.Lynn, England, email via http://mjr.towers.org.uk/