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

CC 3.0-SA unported


I tried to include the text, but had trouble getting it to degrade nicely.

This message will have general comments about the licence mixed in with DFSG freeness concerns. Unless I explicitly mention a comment as being a freeness-concern it is safe to assume I see it as only a general concern.

Interesting definition of distribute:

means to make available to the public the original and copies of the Work or
Adaptation, as appropriate, through sale or other transfer of ownership.

I would not personally have required public availablily in the definition of distribute.

The definition of "Publicly perforn" is sufficiently complex as to be a candidate
for breaking out and numbering the subclauses.

Section two looks perfectly fine to me.

What is the need for Section 3(e)? The licence is explictly royalty-free. Is it really a legitimate concern who has the right to collect the non-existant royalties? I think this is cruft left over from the "noncommercial" versions of the licence.

Section 4(a) has the first DFSG question that I have noticed:

When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights
granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.

This is the old DRM problem. It does not look to be resolved with this particular wording.

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 Section 4(c), 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 Section 4(c), as requested.

This has been argued to potentially be a problem. It looks to exist in this form of the licence as well.

Section 4(c)

The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that 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.

This one looks like it might be accaptable under the DFSG this time. For adaptations or collections, the promenance clause is restricted to those places where a complete enumeration of contributers can be found. That sounds to be like it is saying: if there is a section listing all contributers, then in that section,
you should list all contributers in a manner that is equally prominent.

In this form it sounds inconvient, but not nessisarally non-free.

So all I'm noticing as potentially DFSG-freeness problems is the DRM, and credit removal.


Reply to: