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

Re: Comments on the latest public CC draft

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:51:32 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:

> I still have to read the final text (I am not so fast!): hence I don't
> know whether there are differences with respect to the draft I
> analyzed (but I've been told that there are).

OK, I dumped the final text of CC-by-sa-v3.0/us and did a rapid wdiff
run against its latest draft.
There actually are differences, but they seem to be mainly of cosmetic

You can find the license text at

As far as the clauses I previously quoted are concerned, the final
phrasing is as follows.

Section 1(b) states:

| b. "Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is
|    listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has
|    been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent
|    to this License, including, at a minimum, because that license:
|    (i) contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect
|    as the License Elements of this License; and, (ii) explicitly
|    permits the relicensing of derivatives of works made available
|    under that license under this License or either a Creative
|    Commons unported license or a Creative Commons jurisdiction
|    license with the same License Elements as this License.

This section is a bit rephrased and clarified, but the substance is
basically unchanged.  The issues I raised still hold.

Section 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 Section 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 Section 4(c), as requested.

This part is basically unchanged (apart from some minor cosmetic word
substitutions) and hence does not make a difference for the issues I

Section 4(b) states, in part:

| b. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
|    publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under: (i) the
|    terms of this License; (ii) a later version of this License with
|    the same License Elements as this License; (iii) either the
|    Creative Commons (Unported) license or a Creative Commons
|    jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version)
|    that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g.
|    Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (Unported)); (iv) a Creative Commons
|    Compatible License.

This clause is slightly rephrased, but has the same meaning (and thus
the same issues) as the draft.

Section 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.

which is word for word identical to the draft (and thus poses the same
exact issues).

I also dumped the final text of CC-by-sa-v3.0 (unported) and run wdiff
against the US-specific version.  The two final texts show major
differences (even in the number and ordering of the sections).  As a
consequence, the unported license requires a separate analysis and
cannot be easily treated in a differential manner with respect to the
US-specific license (the only one that was released as public draft back
on 9 February...).

You can find the full text here:

I hope I will find the time to review this license, too...

 Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpSC6UVj21Ea.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: