@ 04/04/2004 03:57 : wrote Nathanael Nerode :
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"
one of the definitions on "comparable" (according to Google) is:
An abbreviation for "comparable properties"; used for comparative
purposes in the appraisal process. Comparables are properties like the
property under consideration; they have reasonably the same size,
location, and amenities and have recently been sold. Comparables help
the appraiser determine the approximate fair market value of the subject
property.
It applies to real state, but applies to other goods, too. Like displays
of authorship.
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.
--
br,M
