On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:50:04 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > > 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? > > > 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. > > > > > > Interestingly, CC Scotland 2.5 states > > | in the case of a Derivative Work or a Collective Work, placing that > | credit in the same place, and at least as prominently, as any > | comparable authorship credit. > > and 2.0 states > > | at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable > | authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as > | such other comparable authorship credit. > > I wonder if this might just be a rewording oversight? Both CC-2.5/scotland and CC-2.0 have the "any other comparable authorship credit" ambiguity issues, as explained in the CC-2.0 summary[1] by Evan Prodromou. Maybe the rewording was intended to improve things from this point of view, but failed to limit the scope of the prominency requirement. [1] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html -- 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:
pgpYLggKRWiX6.pgp
Description: PGP signature