Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Evan Prodromou <evan@prodromou.name>
> Are you talking about this license?
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode
As far as I know, yes.
> It doesn't seem to be a shining example of simplicity to me. Here's the
> relevant section from CC Scotland:
>
> 2.2 However, this Licence does not allow you to:
>
> 1. impose any terms or any technological measures on the
> Work, or a Derivative Work, that alter or restrict the
> terms of this Licence or any rights granted under it or
> have the effect or intent of restricting the ability of
> any person to exercise those rights;
>
> ....and from CC 3.0 generic draft:
>
> You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that
> restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to
> exercise the rights granted to them under the License.
>
> The Scottish one has a nice brevity in that it combines concerns about
> DRM and extra license terms, and restrictions on verbatim and modified
> copies, in one sentence. Otherwise, I don't see an order-of-magnitude
> difference in the simplicity of the text.
The Scottish quote above seems equivalent to CC 3.0draft+parallel's:
[...] You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict
the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work
to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of
the License unless You also make a copy or phonorecord of the Work
available to the recipient, without additional fee, in at least one
medium that does not restrict the ability of a recipient of that copy
or phonorecord of the Work to exercise the rights granted to them under
the License, provided that that copy or phonorecord of the Work is
at least as accessible to the recipient as a practical matter as the
Restricted Format. You may not sublicense the Work. [...] You may not
impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability
of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise their rights granted
under the License. [...] You may not offer or impose any terms on the
Adaptation that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the
recipient of the Work to exercise of the rights granted under the License
unless You also make a copy or phonorecord of the Work available to the
recipient, without additional fee, in at least one medium that does not
restrict the ability of a recipient of that copy or phonorecord of the
Work to exercise the rights granted to them under the License, provided
that that copy or phonorecord of the Work is at least as accessible
to the recipient as a practical matter as the Restricted Format.
[...] You may not impose any effective technological measures on the
Adaptation that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Adaptation
from You to exercise their rights granted under the License. [...]
and maybe some other bits too (CC3.0 is a long licence). The Scotland
one is far briefer, especially when viewed in context, and it has the
apparently crucial difference of including 'effect or intent'.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: