-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm writing because I've just been made aware of this summary of the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 license:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html Let me first note that Creative Commons uses a suite of licenses, with a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike, NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require Attribution would also fall under this analysis. Second, let me note how poorly timed the analysis is. Creative Commons revised their suite of licenses this year (from 1.0 to 2.0), and this list was asked to provide comment: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/01/msg00241.html Making our organization's ideas known to Creative Commons could have meant a better suite of licenses for the 2.0 release. Instead, the opportunity was missed. As far as I know, the above-mentioned analysis wasn't forwarded to Creative Commons before today. Thirdly, let me say that I disagree with most of the summary. I'll try and cover the points in detail below: 1) Many DFSG-free licenses require that small portions of text be kept intact or added to the source code or output of the program. The most notable examples would be copyright notices, license notification, warranty disclaimer, and notice of modifications made; the BSD license(s) and the GPL come to mind immediately. Putting conditions on modification does not make a license non-free. We even codify this in DFSG point 4. Patch-only modification is a condition on modification that we consider acceptable if not ideal. Conditions on modification are, of course, a matter of degree. If conditions are _so_ burdensome as to make modification and redistribution _impracticable_ -- "You may distribute modified versions if you square the circle, jump Snake River Canyon on a motorcycle, travel faster than light" -- then the right to modify is for all practical purposes not granted. But requiring attribution to the original author does not appear to me to be that kind of burden. In particular, the license makes it clear that you must "give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing". A Licensor could not abuse this requirement by making Attribution impractical -- say, by providing a 5-terabyte name or title. Licensees are only required to give Attribution in a reasonable way. Let me note here that, although the Open Source Definition is not identical to the DFSG, the OSI has approved a few licenses that have equivalent or greater attribution requirements. Most notable is the Attribution Assurance License template: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php This is not, of course, canonical for Debian, but it does provide some suggestion that a group following guidelines similar to ours don't see a serious problem with requiring attribution. Apache 2.0 also requires attribution (in the NOTICE file). 2) I agree with this one. The intention appears to be to allow copyright holders to avoid having their name used in advertisement, a la the BSD, but in an opt-out rather than opt-in fashion. However, as stated, it would indeed allow a license holder to prevent _any_ mention of themselves in derivative works. This could severely limit the licensee's freedom. An example would be an annotated version of a work that critiques the writer, or an autobiography that is revised to include critical comments or facts about the writer. It would probably be useful to modify the license to show that the licensor can revoke the Attribution requirements, but not prevent other mention of their name. 3) As for the trademark clause, I agree that the trademark requirement is burdensome. HOWEVER, considering that Creative Commons is _not_ a party to the license, no action by that organization to overstep trademark bounds could invalidate the license. If A grants B the rights outlined in Attribution 1.0, no increase in trademark restrictions by the third-party Creative Commons could revoke those rights. So, that's my feedback. I'd like to know what can be done to amend the analysis and re-open this license (as well as Attribution 2.0, ShareAlike 1.0, and Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 and 2.0) for consideration. On the Creative Commons side, I'd wonder what opportunity there is to get Debian's very tardy comments and critiques applied to new versions of the CC licenses. ~ESP - -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAxeP/ozwefHAKBVERAmHxAJ9Qna+IwzXTEXnGJm+pJD3vPdeQ7ACeNOCC 4FMc8pCK4bDxmzyefv6wlN4= =xyLh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----