Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com> writes:
> Hi Legal Experts,
Scant few of those here. Please note that this forum is *not* primarily
composed of legal experts, and you should not expect that anyone here
has any particular legal qualification unless they demonstrate it.
(You may already know that, but the trend of readers in the past has
been to often assume that what you imply above is true.)
> […] we advise (and use ourselves) CC BY-SA 3.0, in particular because
> it was announced to be DFSG-compliant.
Yes, that seems to be the opinion of the Debian ftpmasters.
> Here follows the main question: what would be the correct composition
> of for the copyright/license notice to embed the desired attribution,
I would think it should be no different from the general recommendations
for a good copyright notice and license grant. For example:
Copyright © 2007–2011 Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
This work is free software; anyone may copy, modify, and/or
redistribute it under the terms of Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0
International license. No warranty expressed or implied.
See the file ‘foo/bar/LICENSE.CC-BY-SA-3.0.txt’ for full terms.
Note, though, that the CC Attribution clauses make provision for the
copyright holder to specify whatever manner of attribution they like. As
a copyright holder choosing a CC Attribution clause, it follows that
you'd need to spell out for the recipient exactly how you want them to
do attribution.
> Copyright (C) 2010, Author1, Author2
> Distributed under the terms of the
> Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
URLs can later lead to different documents than the terms intended by
the copyright holder, or lead to an error page, at some arbitrary point
in the future. That's a bad risk for trying to make license terms clear
to every recipient.
Best to include the full license terms in the work itself as an obvious
text document, where feasible, and refer directly to them there instead
of a URL. See my example above.
> Public use requires attribution of the original works published in
> Author1, Author2, Title of the paper, where published, 2010, URL:
> http://....
>
> Something like that? or am I stretching "attribution" idea of CC BY-SA
> too far?
The Creative Commons wiki has a few pages explaining the Attribution
clauses:
<URL:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Attribution>
<URL:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users>
As it says there:
As explained by the license deeds, to fulfill the requirements of
Attribution you must attribute the work in the manner specified by
the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they
endorse you or your use of the work).
--
\ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, |
`\ Brain, but if we had a snowmobile, wouldn't it melt before |
_o__) summer?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpsnW5HPBkz_.pgp
Description: PGP signature