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

Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:06:28 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > And the response is:
> > 
> > | This argument can certainly be made.  CC does not feel that it, as
> > | license steward, should opine on the likelihood with which a court
> > | in any jurisdiction would uphold this argument if the issue were
> > | litigated.
> Note that they made no counterarguments.  In other words, the argument
> is correct as far as CC knows, but they don't want to act as lawyers
> without a license.

True, but they didn't tell us what *they* mean with that clause.
That is, let's say that Debian takes some of CC website pages (that are
under a CC license, right? suppose we wait until they are under a CC-v3
license...) and redistributes them on some DRM-encumbered media/channel,
while making them available at the same time in an *un*encumbered
OK, it's very hypothetical, but anyway...
CC is the copyright holder: would they sue Debian for doing the above? 
Or would they consider the anti-DRM clause as complied with?

> > Hence, it seems that CC refuses to disclose the intended meaning of
> > the clause...
> > Is this a dead end?  Have we to wait for a court case before we can
> > decide if (some) CC-v3 licenses meet the DFSG?!?
> > This is really frustrating...  :-(
> I think the plaintext meaning should be assumed unless the licensor 
> specifies otherwise (reference UW-Pine case), and we know that the
> plaintext meaning allows "parallel distribution".  (Of course, if
> there is a court case, we'd have to defer to that, but until there is,
> I'd go by the plain meaning.)
> In other words, I think CC-v3 is OK unless the licensor indicates a
> "strange interpretation".

I'm not convinced: there still are other unsolved issues.
See my analysis and the subthread that followed:

I'll try to summarize my concerns below.

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.

How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid an accurate credit
and meet the DFSG at the same time?

Hypothetical example: Evan Prodromou writes the novel _Wuthering
Heights_, under CC-by-v3 and I create an annotated version,
titled _Wuthering Heights, from a neo-nazi Perspective_.
Really hypothetical, but anyway...
Assume that I state

  by Francesco Poli and Evan Prodromou

Evan requests to be removed from authorship credits.  Fairly enough.
I remove his name.
I don't think that the above credit would be accurate.

What if I stated the following?

  by Francesco Poli,
  based on Evan Prodromou's _Wuthering Heights_

Is that acceptable?
Or can Evan request (under clause 4(a)) that his name be removed from
the "based on ..." statement?

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.

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 don't see this restriction as DFSG-free.

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.  I want to put a "credit for all contributing authors"
and list my name and Alice E. Writer in 12 pt fonts, followed by credit
for Jack F. Poet in 11 pt fonts.
It seems reasonable to me, but, nonetheless, credit for Jack would not
be "at least as prominent as the credits for the other authors": that is
to say, the license wouldn't allow me to do so.

If it said "at least as prominent as the credits for the authors of
other comparable contributions", it would be OK, but the actual clause
doesn't say this, unfortunately.

But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend.   -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpjKrifLR967.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: