Francesco Poli skrev:
>
>
> I am analyzing CC by-nc-sa v3draft license: why isn't
there any
> highlighting for the clauses that vanish in the other
v3draft licenses?
> I am especially interested in by-sa and by, since they
are the only two
> that have some hope to meet the Debian Free Software
Guidelines (DFSG
> from here on)...
> I think that clarity in this respect would be very
important.
The by-nc-sa is chosen as the baseline text because it is
the most
extensive of all the license texts. The other licenses uses
a subset of
the text of by-nc-sa.
Also do note that meeting the DFSG is not necessarily a
design goal for
CC...
>
> Clause 4(a) states, in part:
>
> | 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 clause 4(d), 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 clause 4(d), as
requested.
>
> This concerns me...
> I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal,
but I'm not yet
> convinced that this clause meets the DFSG.
> The most in-depth (and long) discussion on this topic
that I recall
> starts more or less with
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00092.
html
>
> What I do not understand basically boils down to:
>
> How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid an
accurate credit
> and meet the DFSG at the same time?
>
> I think that stating "This Adaptation is based on
the Work _foo_ by
> James O. Hacker" is an accurate credit, as long as
it's true.
> Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a
credit seems to
> significantly restrict my ability of modifying the work
(see DFSG#3).
It's only fair that an author that wants to allow an
adaptation, that he
feels might compromise his reputation or his artistic
integrity, to be
published is granted the right to disassociate himself from
the
adaptation. It would be unfair if an adapter would have the
right to
make use of the good reputation of the creator of the
original work
against the will of the author. In any case the author (of
course)
retains his right to sue the adapter for violating the moral
rights
associated with the work.
If this restricts DFSG#3, so be it.
> Hypothetical example: Walter Writer writes the novel
_Good Title_, under
> CC-by-v3 and Nazi Ned creates an annotated version,
titled _Good Title,
> from a neo-nazi Perspective_.
> Assume that Nazi Ned states
>
> by Nazi Ned and Walter Writer
>
> Walter requests to be removed from authorship credits.
Fairly enough.
> Ned removes his name.
> I don't think that the above credit would be accurate,
so no problem
> here.
>
> What if Ned stated the following?
>
> by Nazi Ned,
> based on Walter Writer's _Good Title_
>
> Is that acceptable?
No.
> Or can Walter request (under clause 4(a)) that his name
be removed from
> the "based on ..." statement?
IMHO: yes...
>
>
> Clause 4(b) states, in part:
>
> | b. You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an
Adaptation only under
> | the terms of this License, a later version of
this License with
> | the same License Elements as this License, or a
Creative
> | Commons license for another jurisdiction
(either this or a
> | later license version) that contains the same
License Elements
> | as this License (e.g.,
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
> | Japan).
>
> It's worth noting that CC licenses have a mandatory
version-upgrade
> mechanism and also a mandatory jurisdiction-change
mechanism.
> This can weaken the copyleft of ShareAlike licenses,
and possibly
> trigger weird clauses such as "sue me in
Scotland" (found in
> CC-by-2.5/scotland, for instance). Authors, you have
been warned!
There are good reasons why such clauses exist. In many cases
they just
clarify the mechanics of international private law, Europe
Community law
and the territorial principle.
> Clause 4(c) states, in part:
>
> | c. You may not exercise any of the rights granted
to You in
> | Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily
intended
> | for or directed toward commercial advantage or
private
> | monetary compensation.
>
> This clause forbids selling the Work (fails DFSG#1) and
discriminates
> against a field of endeavor (fails DFSG#6).
> I hope that clause 4(c) is entirely absent from CC-by
and CC-by-sa, but
> unfortunately there's no clear indication in this
draft.
Only licenses that contains the NC element has this clause.
> Clause 4(d) states, in part:
>
> | 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.
>
> 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 think that this restriction is excessive and fails to
meet the DFSG.
>
> I mean: Walter Writer incorporates a short poem by Paul
Poet into a
> novel that includes 21 chapters written by Cindy
Coauthor and 25
> chapters written by Walter himself. Walter wants to
put a "credit for
> all contributing authors" and lists his name (that
is, Walter Writer)
> and Cindy Coauthor in 12 pt fonts, followed by credit
for Paul Poet in
> 11 pt fonts.
> It seems reasonable to me, but, nonetheless, credit for
Paul would not
> be "at least as prominent as the credits for the
other authors": that is
> to say, the license wouldn't allow Walter to do so.
>
> If it said "at least as prominent as the credits
for the authors of
> other comparable contributions", it would be OK,
but the actual clause
> doesn't say this, unfortunately.
This clause is here to prevent downstream users to try and
circumvent
the crediting rules.
IMHO it's a fair rule.
/Peter Brink
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|