Hello, This is recent part of a discussion that's currently on-going on the CC-Jo mailing list. All are invited to participate.
Ahmad Gharbeia مرحبا، هذا هو الجزء الأخير من نقاش يجري الآن في القائمة البريدية مشروع الرخصة الأردنية، و الجميع مدعوون للاطلاع و المشاركة. النقاش يجري بالإنجليزية نظرا لمشاركة غير العرب فيه. أحمد غربية Ahmad Gharbeia -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: CC license elements vocabulary is its branding [was Re: مفردات الرخصة] Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:12:22 +0900 From: Joichi Ito <[email protected]> To: Ahmad Gharbeia <[email protected]> CC: Rami Olwan <[email protected]>, "Ziad M. Maraqa" <[email protected]>, "donna d.r." <[email protected]>, Diane Peters <[email protected]>, [email protected] This is very interesting. Thanks for starting this discussion and adding the cc-jo mailing list. It would be great if others could chime in as well. - Joi On Oct 27, 2009, at 23:06 , Ahmad Gharbeia wrote: > Thank you ,Rami, for the elaborate and prompt reply. It must have taken > from your time. > > 13'D) Rami Olwan AJ 27/10/09 14:22: >> Hi Ahmad, > > > >> As promised, please find below my comments after consulting with Ziad. >> For your ease of reference, they are in the same order you have raised >> them. > > > >> *1) **Attribution: 'D92H instead of F3( 'DE5FA* > >> We have agreed to use F3( 'DE5FA as it gives the proper legal meaning >> and is much clearer than what you suggested as it is literal translation. > >> The /Jordanian Copyright Law/ does not use 'D92H. We have relied on the >> spirit of Art 17/D that provides: > > Understood. > I'm not arguing about legal relevance, and in this specific instance not > even about clarity. My concern is how these words are used in the *human > layer* of the license. > >> The published works maybe used, without the consent of the author >> subject to the following conditions and in the following cases: > >> D. Quoting paragraphs of the work into another work for purposes of >> illustration, explanation, discussion, critique, cultivation, or >> examination within the limits justified by these purposes and provided >> that the names of the work and author are mentioned. > > This is beside the point, but 'D92H, literally "attribution", is not > concerned with "consent", either. > It is also understood that the licensor grants this permission in > advance, which is the real benefit of the CC license. > > >> Art 8/A of the Jordanian /Copyright Law/ uses clearly Attribution and in >> Arabic F3( 'DE5FA. The right of attribution is one of the moral rights. >> Moral rights are the foundation stone of author s right system ( droit >> d auteur system) as it has come to be applied in Europe (particularly >> France) rather than the Anglo- Saxon copyright system . Art 8/A >> provides that: > > I acknowledge this and the remaining legal basis you mention. > > >> Also, in Arabic legal scholarship, it is not difficult to find Jordanian >> and Egyptian copyright scholars refer to F3( 'DE5FA as attributing the >> name of the author to his work. > > I'm not thinking "Jordanian vs. Egyptian" copyright laws at all. I'm > just arguing that maybe a justified and well-defined use of this or > similar word could facilitate the use and acceptance of the license in > its human front. > > In your professional opinion, do you think it would be possible to > define what 'D92H (or another single suitable word) means in the context > of the license (eventually a contract itself)? > For example by stating that "in the context of this license xxx means > yyyy in such a way [...]"? > > Alternatively, do you think it could be 'DF3() alone without the > redundant 'DE5FA ("work")? At least where the shor-hand form of the > words are used in the license desgination, i.e. "Creative Commons: > Attribution-XXX-YYY v3.0"? > > > > >> *2) **NonCommercial: :J1'D*,'1J instead of :J1 *,'1J)* > >> Your comment here is correct as we are not referring to the license, but >> instead to the work. We will change it accordingly. Thank you for >> raising this point. > > If you take a look at what I had sent on the mailing list you'd find a > couple more of this kind of notes. > > > >> *3) **ShareAlike: 'DE4'1C)('DE+D instead of *H2J9G HAB FA3 'D*1.J5 >> and the >> unfinalised suggested alternative 'DE4'1C) 9DI B/E 'DE3'H')* > >> * * > >> There is no corresponding word for ShareAlike in Arabic that is used in >> the Jordanian /Copyright Law/ as this concept is not found. > >> Again, your translation is literal and to some users (not familiar with >> the word share alike in English) do not give the needed meaning. >> Furthermore, most legal scholars would not know what you are taking >> about if you use 'DE4'1C)('DE+D. > > I ask whether Share-alike has foundation in the legal jargon of English > speaking jurisdictions? UK, US, Ausralia? > If not, then there is space for defining words that are not necessarily > rooted in existing legal jargon, as long as we define them well in the > context and bind the definition to recognised, existing legal structures > and code. Even if just for the sake of using it in the human layer of > the license. > > >> We have been creative in coming up with this combination of words that >> give the meaning. I am not sure if we need to use a catchy word as we >> can come with many alternatives, but would it be understood? > > If English-speaking people can be taught what "ShareAlike" means then it > shouldn't be a problem educating Arabic speaking people what > 'DE4'1C)('DE+D means. > > I other discussions about localisation I tend to give numerous examples > about the seemingly unequivocal usage of words in the modern age and > specially Internet domain, while their recent history reveal radically > different usage. See for example spam, web, etc.. And by recent I mean > only few decades, so that even and elderly who isn't familiar with the > jargon of the Internet would have no clue about their use in this context. > > Again, my argument above will stand only if "ShareAlike" is made up in > English with no precedence in legal code. You know better about this. > > > > >> *4) **NoDerivatives: (D''4*B'B* > >> The Jordanian /Copyright Law/ does not use the word derivative as found >> in the US /Copyright Act of 1976/, As Amended. "derivative work" is >> defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101 as: > >> ..a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a >> translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, >> motion picture version&. > > > >> Art 9 of the Jordanian /Copyright Law/ provides that: > >> The author shall have the right to financially exploit his work in any >> way he chooses... This right shall include: > >> C. To translate his work into another language, adapt it, orchestrate >> it, or make any alteration thereto& > > > >> We have been faithful to the wording of the law itself that uses >> *(**'B*('3**), *and we didn t want to come up with a new word that might >> not be recognised. > > Legal points acknowledged. And I maintain the same arguments as above, > if they stand. > > >> It is true that the word derivatives do not appear in the title of the >> Arabic license as the unported license that we have used did not include >> it. Please make sure when you are reviewing the Arabic 03 license to >> compare only with the unported licence. All comments must be based also >> on the Jordanian /Copyright Law/. > > So you intend to use (D''B*('3 as the license element equivalent to > "NoDerivatives"? > > > Again, regarding Jordanian law, I'm commenting here specifically on the > words used in the human layer of the license, i.e. its title, which we > have an agreement on, and the license elements. I don't have the legal > expertise to judge your work, and I'm not trying to. > > What I'm trying to do is to ensure that these license element idioms are > chosen in a way that could be easily used across the Arab World, > regardless of the internal workings of the localised legal code; and > most importantly that they be as *human* as much as possible; easy to > learn and propagate. > > >> I was referring to another Arabic 03 version that we want to send to CC. >> This version is still not available online as we have to send it CC with >> the English translation and have their approval. > > I don't have that. So proceeding with the critique of the reminder of > the license text won't be feasible. > > >> One last note , what do you mean by? > >> residual issues are: including software in the licensed word possibly >> covered by CC license& . > > I've raised few points in the first part of my critique of the license > which I submitted to the mailing list in October 2008 [see > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-jo/2008-October/thread.html]. > I believe those are worthy of your consideration. Some linguistic notes, > and suggestions for wording, and also some conceptual. > > Among those one about how the draft I had seen enumerates computer > *software* > among what the license is intended to cover. Wile I'm not > arguing about the viability of this use of the license, I understand > that the English versions I've seen refrains from counting software > among its intended usage. I guess this is consciously left to other > licenses designed specifically for that, like GNU. > > There are also notes about generalisations and specifications in the > language of the license that I thought could benefit from reviewing. > Nothing specific to any given legal jurisdiction. Or so I think. > > >> Thank you again. Please let us know if you have further comments. > > Thank you, Rami, for taking the time to respond. > > Sincerely, > Ahmad Gharbeia > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ لقد تلقيت هذه الرسالة لأنك مشترك في مجموعات Google مجموعة "CC Arab World المشاع الإبداعي". لإرسال هذا إلى هذه المجموعة، قم بإرسال بريد إلكتروني إلى [email protected] لإلغاء الاشتراك في هذه المجموعة، ابعث برسالة إلكترونية إلى [email protected] لخيارات أكثر، الرجاء زيارة المجموعة على http://groups.google.com/group/cc-arab-world?hl=ar -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
