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

Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments



On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:56:02 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:

[...]
> OK.  Let's declare victory and move on.  Proposed statement:
> 
> We believe that the draft CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses appear to be
> Free  Licenses, so that most works licensed under them will probably
> satisfy the  DFSG.  Please note that Debian evaluates the freeness of
> each work  independently. Issues beyond copyright licensing sometimes
> come into play.  And particular licensors may specify different
> interpretations of the  license text.  So this statement does not mean
> that Debian will  automatically consider every work licensed under
> these licenses to be free.

I'm not convinced: even if you read the anti-TPM clause as meaning what
it seems to mean (despite all the loud claims by parallel distribution
opposers...), there still are other unsolved issues.
See my analysis and the subthread that followed:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00078.html

I'll try to re-summarize my concerns below.
They are already summarized in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/09/msg00178.html
but got no reply at all (am I being considered a troll?!?).


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: Walter Writer writes the novel _Good Title_,
under CC-by-v3 and Nazi Ned creates an annotated version,
titled _Good Title, from a neo-nazi Perspective_.
Assume that Nazi Ned states

  by Nazi Ned and Walter Writer

Walter requests to be removed from authorship credits.  Fairly enough.
Ned removes his name.
I don't think that the above credit would be accurate, so no problem
here.

What if Ned stated the following?

  by Nazi Ned,
  based on Walter Writer's _Good Title_

Is that acceptable?
Or can Walter 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: Walter Writer incorporates a short poem by Paul Poet into a
novel that includes 21 chapters written by Cindy Coauthor and 25
chapters written by Walter himself.  Walter wants to put a "credit for
all contributing authors" and lists his name (that is, Walter Writer)
and Cindy Coauthor in 12 pt fonts, followed by credit for Paul Poet in
11 pt fonts.
It seems reasonable to me, but, nonetheless, credit for Paul would not
be "at least as prominent as the credits for the other authors": that is
to say, the license wouldn't allow Walter 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: pgplgZcUk6evg.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: