On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:47:15 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > > Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones > > that (accurately) credit the author of the original work! > > As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a > > CC-licensed novel, but I could be forbidden to accurately > > acknowledge the authorship of the novel I comment on! > > > No, that's specifically something that you can do. We recommended that > they only allow requesting a removal from authorship credits, not from > anywhere in the book. So, if you took a novel I wrote and published an > annotation called: "Wuthering Heights, from a neo-nazi Perspective", > and put "by Francesco Poli and Evan Prodromou", I could reasonably > ask to be removed from the authorship credits. However, within the > book you could say, "What Evan means here is..." and "When Evan wrote > this book..." and so on. This is something that I would very much like to clarify. I tried before, but the discussion failed to give a clear answer (see http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/E1FHWEn-0003ef-00@pipe.localnet.towers.org.uk and the subthread that followed...). So, in you hypothetical example, you wrote the novel _Wuthering Heights_, under CC-by-v3 (assuming that the current draft is released unchanged as the finat license text) and I created 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 You request to be removed from authorship credits. Fairly enough. I remove your name. I don't think that the above credit would accurate. What if I stated the following? by Francesco Poli, based on Evan Prodromou's _Wuthering Heights_ Is that acceptable? Or can you request (under clause 4(a)) that your name be removed from the "based on ..." statement? > > Don't you feel it's awkward? > > > I don't care about awkward. I care about DFSG-compatible. Point taken. > > I think that forcing modifiers to hide the origin of the work is > > non-free. > > > I have to ask: you read the summary that we sent to CC several times > and gave many helpful comments and suggestions. Did you not see the > recommendation in the summary on this issue, or has your opinion > changed since the summary came out? I saw it, but I only thought of the potential issue later on. I did express my concerns about this to you in a private message (in July 2005), but got no reply. I discussed the issue on debian-legal, while talking about a Scotland localized CC license (again, see http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/E1FHWEn-0003ef-00@pipe.localnet.towers.org.uk and the subthread that followed), but you didn't take part in the discussion. I am sorry for having failed in letting you know about the issue before, but I have no other means of getting in touch with you... > > Moreover, there's another aspect that concerns me: I'm compelled to > > credit the author of the original work (see clause 4(d) of > > CC-by-sa-nc-v3draft0808060) until I receive a request to purge such > > credit. > > Does this mean that I must take action upon request, even after the > > derivative work has been released, and re-release a revised version? > > What if I do not have enough time to do that? > > > My understanding is that "to the extent practicable" means that you > don't have to do anything if it's going to be an extreme pain in the > can. So, changing the author credit on a Web page, say, is > practicable, but changing the credit on a broadcast TV show that > already aired is not. Ah, I didn't think of this consequence of the "to the extent practicable" language. Thanks for pointing out. -- 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:
pgpBYKOAJRdfx.pgp
Description: PGP signature