Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli wrote:
> What is unclear to me is: which license am I analyzing? It seems to be
> by-nc-sa (v3draft). Why isn't there any highlighting for the clauses
> that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc?
> I think that clarity in this respect would be very important, since
> there's no way that works under CC-by-nc-sa can comply with the DFSG!
It's only a draft. And it's easy to distinguish clauses that vanish in
by-sa, by, and by-nc.
> Clause 4(a) states, in part:
> | If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You
> | must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection
> | any credit as required by clause 4(d), as requested. If You
> | create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must,
> | to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any
> | credit as required by clause 4(d), as requested.
> This still concerns me...
> What I do not understand basically boils down to:
> How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid an accurate credit
> and meet the DFSG at the same time?
> I think that stating "This Adaptation is based on the Work _foo_ by
> James O. Hacker" is an accurate credit, as long as it's true.
> Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a credit seems to
> fail DFSG#3.
I don't think so.
DFSG3 doesn't forbid some restrictions as long as they are necessary or
reasonable. Image that I made a work based on the work _foo_ by
> James O. Hacker, but it turns out to be a very terrible work, full of
mistakes. People may think James O. Hacker's work is not very good work
too. In this case, James O. Hacker may want me to remove hir credit.
This is quite reasonable.DFSG3 shouldn't forbid this.
> A more concrete example could be the one found in
> with some slight adaptations: an author who made a novel available under
> an Attribution 3.0 license could give notice to disallow an annotated
> version that accurately credits him/her as the author of the original
> novel. That is to say: I can publish an annotated version of the novel,
> but I could be forbidden to acknowledge the (true and correct)
> authorship of the novel itself!
> I cannot understand how this could be seen as DFSG-free...
I think it's the author's right to do so. And you always can add this to
the copyright notice:
This work is based on another work, whose author doesn't wish to put hir
> Clause 4(b) states, in part:
> | b. You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under
> | the terms of this License, a later version of this License with
> | the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative
> | Commons license for another jurisdiction that contains the
> | same License Elements as this License (e.g.,
> | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.1 Japan).
> It's worth noting that CC licenses have a mandatory version-upgrade
> mechanism and also a mandatory jurisdiction-change mechanism.
> This can weaken the copyleft of ShareAlike licenses, and possibly
> trigger weird clauses such as "sue me in Scotland" (found in
> CC-by-2.5/scotland, for instance). Authors, you have been warned!
This is not a problem. Just think about dual licensing or GPL's
example: under version 2.0 or any other license published by FSF.
> Clause 4(c) states, in part:
> | c. You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in
> | Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended
> | for or directed toward commercial advantage or private
> | monetary compensation.
> This clause fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#6, as it does in CC-v2.0 licenses (see
> I hope that clause 4(c) is entirely absent from CC-by and CC-by-sa, but
> unfortunately there's no clear indication in this draft.
Of course it won't appear in CC-by and CC-by-sa. The draft is not for
all the CC licenses, so it don't need to indicate this.
> Clause 4(d) states, in part:
> | in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such
> | credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors
> | of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these
> | credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits
> | for the other contributing authors.
> Wait, wait.
> Credit must be "at least as prominent as the credits for the other
> contributing authors". Even if the licensor's contribution is not
> comparable to others?
> I mean: I incorporate a short poem by Jack F. Poet into a novel that
> includes 21 chapters written by Alice E. Writer and 25 chapters written
> by me: the credit for Jack F. Poet must be at least as prominent as the
> credits for the other authors?!?
This only happens when "a credit for all contributing authors of the
Adaptation or Collection appears" In your case, you may don't want to
put such a credit in your novel.
> If this is the case, it seems that one of the known issues with the
> CC-v2.0 "any other comparable authorship credit" language (see
> http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html) is still present in this
> CC-v3 draft!
> To quote Evan again:
> ) Requiring inaccurate or excessive authorship credits is an
> ) unreasonable restriction on distribution (DFSG 1) and making
> ) modified versions (DFSG 3).
> Clause 4(e) states:
> | e. For the avoidance of doubt, if You exercise the rights granted
> | under this License for a purpose or use which is otherwise
> | than noncommercial as permitted under clause 4(c), the
> | Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect whether
> | individually or through a collecting society or other
> | authorized person, whether under a voluntary or statutory
> | licensing scheme, royalties in respect of such exercise.
> This shares with clause 4(c) the same DFSG incompatibilities.
> I hope that clause 4(e) as well is entirely absent from CC-by and
> CC-by-sa, but, again, there's no clear indication in this draft.
Things are different now. The new version solves the issue.
> The following are typos, or at least they seem to be:
> ---> in clause 4(d) there seems to be no closing parenthesis after
> "Attribution Parties"
> | for attribution ("Attribution Parties" in Licensor's copyright
> | notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the
> | name of such party or parties;
> ---> in clause 5 there seems to be some confusion (shouldn't it be
> "OR ABSENCE"?)
> | OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS
> ---> in Creative Commons Notice there seems to be a repeated sentence
> | For the avoidance of doubt, this trademark restriction does not
> | form part of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, this
> | trademark restriction does not form part of the License.
I agree with you. I think these typos will be removed.