On 2004-07-22 00:53:18 +0100 Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Yes, I saw the debate on this
> when it came around, but I was under the impression that someone was working
> with CC to fix the supposed issues... this sounds as if we have given it up.
Summarising the discussions so far should help CC members to get a handle on
current thinking here. I agree that summaries have been a bit closed recently
("this is non-free") and I hope this one isn't (more like "here is what worries
us").
Ben Francis, Evan Prodromou and myslef have been trying to persuade CC to enter
into dialogue, but with one exception (IIRC), it's been much like shouting into
a dark hole so far. Nathanael Nerode got bored waiting in the past, I think. If
you have insight or Magic CC Karma, please help.
> So, here is why I think this summary is total bunk [...]
Now, this sounds as if you have given up.
>> If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You
>> must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any
>> reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If You
>> create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the
>> extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such
>> Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.
> [...] Joe, embarressed by the program, says he wants his name taken out,
> the court will order you to take away the attribution. It is against the law
> to say someone did something if they did not. This is just a true under the
> GPL as Attribution 2.0, they just spelled it out in the Attribution 2.0 to
> make litigation easier.
The problem is that, as far as I can tell, Author Joe can insist that
non-attributive mentions of his name are removed from a CC-By work. Have I
misunderstood the wording above?
> Its amazing how adding words to a phrase changes its meaning, even more so
> when changing the order.
Yes, rewording probably shouldn't be included, as much as possible. I do think
the phrase "Comparable Authorship Credit" is ambiguous: are we dealing with one
adjective and a two-word noun, or two adjectives and a noun?
>> Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the
>> Work
>> is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark
>> "Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons
>> without the prior written consent of Creative Commons.
>
> "These restrictions make excessive demands on both licensor and licensee, and
> abridge their fair use rights to the Creative Commons trademarks." Cute, but
> untrue. A trademark is not a copyright... and Fair Use rights are
> significantly less with a trademark over a copyright.
Please tell me why I would not normally be allowed to call Creative Commons by
that name. If I have not agreed to a licence including the above term, I can,
AFAICT. The above term, if included in the CC-By, forbids it as a condition of
copyright permission.
> Let's be serious for
> just a moment... do you really believe that Prof. Lessig is going to
> encourage restriction of something in violation of established fair use
> rights. Something tells me the thousands of hours spent preparing for
> arguements before the Supreme Court should help us give the benefit of the
> doubt.
No, Prof Lessig got it right. CC do not see the trademark thing as part of the
licence. Sadly, some licensors include it as part of the licence because the CC
page is not clear. This seems a presentational blunder by whoever put it online
for CC, but it does bite and CC refuse to fix it. Might as well alert people
about CC's bug. A CC poster to cc-licenses wrote: "We're definitely not going
to produce a new version for this, which isn't even a part of the license."
<URL:http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-July/000989.html>
> [...] will debain-legal just
> say "this is bad" or does it have recommendations as to how to fix this
> issue.
Isn't that the "Recommendations for Creative Commons" section? Some of them (ND
and NC) are clearly designed not to be fixed, though.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
