Here are some comments on the draft summary: I think I'd make these changes >It is likely that Creative Commons does not intend this to be a Free "quite possible"? I'm not sure about "likely". >license in the sense of the DFSG. However, since requiring attribution >and credit is acceptable under the DFSG this summary was written to >point out the other problems with this license. Good sentence. :-)
>- Credit to original author(s) must be as prominently displayed, and in > the same location, as credit to any other author. This restricts > modification (DFSG 3). It's not actually clear exactly what it requires due to the "comparable" authorship credits phrase. I would say "It appears (although it's slightly unclear) that credit to the original author(s)..." >- When any Licensor asks, their name(s) must be purged from the work. > This restricts modification (DFSG 3). Probably you should note that this is "all references" to their names. >- Use of the "Creative Commons" trademark (or related trademark or logo) > is apparently a license violation, and thus grounds for a copyright "appears to be a license violation"? At this point we think that it actually isn't, but it still appears to be when one reads the license. :-P > holder to revoke the license. This violates the "Tentacles of Evil" > test[1] and can remove all freedoms the license grants. <snip> >Suggestions: > >As the copyright holder you could use another license like the GPL or >2-clause BSD. These licenses are substantially different, though, so >you should take care to understand the license before you make a choice. If someone's planning to use the CC-by license, 2-clause BSD seems to be the closest fit among the standard licenses, so I'd just recommend that, not GPl. >The clause mentioned in the final point above (dealing with the Creative >Commons trademark) is possibly not intended to be part of the license at "probably" not intended >all, as when view in the original HTML with an appropriate browser it That should be "when viewed" >has a different color. different background color And when the HTML source is viewed, there is an HTML comment indicating that it is "not part of the license". > Making this distinction explicitly and in text >form as well as HTML would solve this problem.
