Re: Comments on the latest public CC draft
* Francesco Poli:
> Clause 4(a) states, in part:
> | If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor
> | You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective
> | Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested. If
> | You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You
> | must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative
> | Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested.
> This is unchanged with respect to the previous drafts: I'm not yet
> convinced that this clause meets the DFSG.
Isn't it a no-op in most jurisdictions, just repeating rights authors
have got anyway?
And I hope we would honor such requests in the indicated way,
independently of what the legal requirements are.
> It's worth noting that CC licenses have a mandatory version-upgrade
> mechanism and also a mandatory jurisdiction-change mechanism.
> Now a mandatory relicensing-to-other-yet-unspecified-licenses mechanism
> has been added, thus making the situation even worse, as I explained
> When I say "mandatory", I mean mandatory for the licensor, in the sense
> that a licensor cannot choose to *not* grant this option to licensees.
You can always add a statement to the contrary. And Debian doesn't
care about the perils of software authors (look at the discussion of
choice of venue/choice of law).
> Clause 4(c) states, in part:
> | in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a
> | minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all
> | contributing authors of the Derivative Work or Collective
> | Work appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner
> | at least as prominent as the credits for the other
> | contributing authors.
> This is unchanged with respect to the previous drafts: 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 still think that this restriction is excessive and fails
> to meet the DFSG.
I disagree. This is only a problem if you think credits are
> In summary, suppose a novel is written by three co-authors who
> respectively write, say, 21 chapters, 25 chapters, and N chapters, where
> N is enough to grant the third co-author the author status, but still
> non-negligibly smaller than 21 (maybe N is 1, or 2, or something like
> that...). In this scenario the third co-author must be credited as
> prominently as the other two, which does not seem to be reasonable.
And why should we care about the author's hurt feelings?