MJ Ray wrote:
> and maybe some other bits too (CC3.0 is a long licence). The Scotland
> one is far briefer, especially when viewed in context, and it has the
> apparently crucial difference of including 'effect or intent'.
I'm actually curious as to why this is apparently crucial; I haven't seen
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are you talking about this license?
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode
As far as I know, yes.
> It doesn't seem to be a shining example of simplicity to me. Here's the
> relevant section from CC Scotland:
>
> 2.2 However,
On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 11:47 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > If they wanted to "prevent license complication" why didn't they base
> > CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows
> > parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't?
>
> 'Cause they'r
MJ Ray wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
> [...]
>> The main motivation was to prevent license complication,
>> *not* to prohibit parallel distribution.
>> This is emphasized quite clearly in that message.
>
>
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
[...]
> The main motivation was to prevent license complication,
> *not* to prohibit parallel distribution.
> This is emphasized quite clearly in that message.
If they wanted to "prevent
MJ Ray wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something.
>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
>
> Hope that helps,
It really does help a lot.
"in any case i do not think (and that judgment was
shared
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingList
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> Commented in another post if it really prohibited parallel
>> distribution, I would think it's non-free -- but I think it does *not*
>> prohibit parallel distribution. So I think it *is* free.
>
> Yeah, I'd like to believe that. Now, here's the funny part: if the boa
MJ Ray wrote:
> In http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003950.html
> I asked: "please can someone tell us where to find the record of the
> rejections by international affiliates and how the CC decision-making
> works? I've had a bit of a search of creativecommons.org but h
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Is this interpretation in keeping with how the CC folks understand the
> license?
We don't know. Still. Doesn't that suck? CC is not entirely transparent
unfortunately.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of
MJ Ray wrote:
> Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Tue, 2006-15-08 at 12:46 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> > > > Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general
>> > > > resolution?
>> > > You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though.
>> > How does one start a CC GR?
>>
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:59:53 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:25:31 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > > Considering that we think it's OK for the author to request to be
> > > /added/ to the authorship credits,
> >
> > Let me
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:25:31 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > Considering that we think it's OK for the author to request to be
> > /added/ to the authorship credits,
>
> Let me understand this better, because I cannot remember having
> discussed
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:47:15 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones
> > that (accurately) credit the author of the original work!
> > As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a
> > CC-licensed novel,
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:29:34 -0400 Michael Poole wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
[...]
> > Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones
> > that (accurately) credit the author of the original work!
>
> The Berne Convention (section 6bis), and droit d'auteur regimes even
> befo
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:25:31 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote:
[...]
> Creative Commons did what we recommended here:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
>
> That is, they limited the removal requirements only to authorship
> credits.
>
> I think the general consensus was that it's OK to req
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:37:08 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > AFAICT, CC seems to interpret the clause this way, since the
> > > explicit parallel distribution proviso was *removed* beca
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:37:08 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:06:13 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > OTOH, if CC intends that this clause prevents ever making the Work
> > > available on TPM-encumbered medi
Francesco Poli writes:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:09:52 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
>
>> This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
>> > This still concerns me...
>> > I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal, but I'm not
>> > yet convinced that this clause passes the DFSG.
>> >
>
Francesco Poli wrote:
Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones that
(accurately) credit the author of the original work!
As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a CC-licensed
novel, but I could be forbidden to accurately acknowledge the authorship
of the
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones that
(accurately) credit the author of the original work!
As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a CC-licensed
novel, but I could be forbidden to accurately acknow
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:06:13 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > OTOH, if CC intends that this clause prevents ever making the Work
> > available on TPM-encumbered media (which I don't think is the
> > plain-text reading of this clause)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones that
>(accurately) credit the author of the original work!
>As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a CC-licensed
>novel, but I could be forbidden to accurately acknowledge the authorship
>
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:06:13 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> OTOH, if CC intends that this clause prevents ever making the Work
> available on TPM-encumbered media (which I don't think is the
> plain-text reading of this clause), I don't believe it's
> DFSG-compliant.
AFAICT, CC seems to interpret
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:09:52 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > This still concerns me...
> > I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal, but I'm not
> > yet convinced that this clause passes the DFSG.
> >
> > What I do not understand basi
Hi Evan,
Sorry for being late to the party, but I thought I'd chime in anyway with
my 2ยข on the question.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:26:13AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this:
> Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> This still concerns me...
> I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal, but I'm not yet
> convinced that this clause passes the DFSG.
>
> What I do not understand basically boils down to:
>
> How can a license (allow a licensor to)
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:47:32 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala.
> >
> > If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would li
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:36:11 +0800 Weakish Jiang wrote:
>
>
> Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > What is unclear to me is: which license am I analyzing? It seems to
> > be by-nc-sa (v3draft). Why isn't there any highlighting for the
> > clauses that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc?
> > I think that c
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:44:54 +0800 Weakish Jiang wrote:
>
>
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Please note the adjective "effective"!
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > A) Why are these two clauses different from one another?
> >
> > B) Is the difference relevant with respect to DFSG compliance?
> >
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala.
>
> If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear
> a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment.
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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
Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> While analyzing the license draft, I noted something strange.
> The anti-DRM clause quoted by Evan is, substantially, the one found in
> clause 4(a):
>
> | You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that
> | restrict the ability of a recipient o
Francesco Poli wrote:
> What is unclear to me is: which license am I analyzing? It seems to be
> by-nc-sa (v3draft). Why isn't there any highlighting for the clauses
> that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc?
> I think that clarity in this respect would be very important, since
> there's no way th
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 2006-15-08 at 12:46 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general
> > > > resolution?
> > > You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though.
> > How does one start a CC GR?
>
> The main way that I'v
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> fail DFSG#3.
It seems entirely in line with the
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:05:56 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:26:13 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
>
> > So, I have big news and a big question.
> >
> > Big news
> >
> >
> > Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version
> > of their license suite:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:05:56 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> This is the CCv3draft0808060 anti-DRM clause, as quoted by Evan:
>
> | You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that
> | restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to
> | exercise the rights granted to
On Mon, 2006-14-08 at 01:43 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> As usual, please feel free to forward any of my words to CC. I'm very busy
> and probably won't manage to do so myself.
Saying it yourself is a huge benefit.
> Reviewing the license, everything we were originally worried about appears
On Tue, 2006-15-08 at 12:46 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general
> > > resolution?
> >
> > You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though.
>
> How does one start a CC GR?
The main way that I've seen changes in the CC licenses happen
> From: Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If they were going to play the heavy with us, why would they bother
> making all the other changes we asked for? What would be the point?
To give enough concessions to make a favourable GR more probable.
> It's pretty clear that the Debian Project is n
As usual, please feel free to forward any of my words to CC. I'm very busy
and probably won't manage to do so myself.
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So, I have big news and a big question.
>
> Big news
>
>
> Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of
> their licens
On Mon, 2006-14-08 at 21:28 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I understand your point: you have already expressed your standpoint
> repeatedly with CC folks, but they decided to listen to other parties
> and removed the parallel distribution proviso. At least, I imagine you
> have done so...
Yes, b
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:26:50 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-08 at 23:05 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Not a good start. :-(
>
> Let me take this opportunity to repeat my plea that people who have
> feelings about this issue join the cc-licenses mailing list and post
> messages
On Sat, 2006-12-08 at 23:05 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Not a good start. :-(
Let me take this opportunity to repeat my plea that people who have
feelings about this issue join the cc-licenses mailing list and post
messages on the topic.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-l
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:26:13 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So, I have big news and a big question.
>
> Big news
>
>
> Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of
> their license suite:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017
[...]
> http://evan.prodr
On Fri, 2006-11-08 at 09:34 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> How does CC make decisions? They know how we make decisions and seem
> to be hoping the debian project backs down when pushed to a general
> resolution.
If they were going to play the heavy with us, why would they bother
making all the other chan
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a
> parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the
> DFSG?
It means that any work under any CC 3.0 does not follow the DFSG unless
the licensor grants additional
> > 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of
> > our principles?
Consider an analogy. An amusement park ride puts up a sign saying that
kids must be 4 feet tall to enter. A little while later, it declares that
kids must be allowed in if they're 47 inches, an
On Thu, 2006-10-08 at 11:26 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> GR 2006-01 says, in part,
I accidentally quoted a section from an option of the GR that didn't
pass. Sorry about that. I don't think the mistake invalidates the
discussion, but I wanted to point it out.
~Evan
--
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL P
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this:
>
>Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a
>parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the
>DFSG?
I see no reason to believe that the DFSG forbids such a cla
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>
>
> Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of
> their license suite:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017
>
> Big question
>
>
> The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this:
>
> Does the anti-DRM
So, I have big news and a big question.
Big news
Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of
their license suite:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017
The changes from the 2.x version are largely due to an effort to make
the licenses compatible with t
53 matches
Mail list logo
