>>>>> "NN" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NN> Actually, I think most of clause 4b is fine; it's only one NN> little bit of it which is troublesome. Thanks for your close attention. This is really helpful. 4b> to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource 4b> Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated 4b> with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright 4b> notice or licensing information for the Work; NN> Well, I think this is barely free, though it's a little silly. It's probably less silly in light of the mechanism Creative Commons suggests for embedding license info into artifacts with tight space for metadata: http://creativecommons.org/technology/embedding For file formats like MP3/ID3, there's only so much space for rights info. So, CC recommends storing an URL to the full info. One thing that bothers me, though, is how this becomes 'barely free'. I realize that it may be *annoying* or *stupid*, but how is it *non-free*? I understand how *excessive* conditions on modifications may make something non-free, but requiring that a verbatim URL be included with the Work doesn't seem excessive to me. I also am having a problem with understanding how putting limits on the modification of metadata (info about the Work) makes something non-free. This seems to be standard issue with most free licenses (you have to keep copyright notices, you have to distribute the license with the work, you have to keep a change history, yadda yadda). I see where restrictions on the content (can't change function names, can't change the ending of the short story) are non-free, but I'm not sure I grok why metadata "invariance" is. I really need some help getting this straight in my head. What am I missing, here? 4b> provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or 4b> Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any 4b> other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at 4b> least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. NN> *This* is the problem clause. It's unclear to most of us NN> exactly what "any other comparable authorship credit" means. Yes, I see that. Is it "credit for comparable authorship", or "comparable credit for authorship"? A failure of the appositive! The "any other ..." part is kind of difficult, too. Does it mean "some other ..." (credit has to be somewhere), or "every other ..." (anytime there's credit, this one has to be there, too)? NN> With this ambiguity, the "at least as prominent" requirement NN> is then a potential interpretation nightmare. Suppose, for a NN> silly and extreme example, you wanted to use a huge hunk of NN> material under this license in a version of ReiserFS, so that NN> the code under this license needed a "comparable authorship NN> credit" to Reiser's. Would that mean that the credit would NN> have to appear in the FS name, so as to be in the same NN> location and at least as prominent as Reiser's credit? Yeech. Yeech, yes. Possibly a more appropriate example would be when I include an Attribution-licensed quote from you (beyond the extent of fair use) in my book, "The Autobiography of Evan Prodromou". Would I have to change the title to "The Autobiography of Evan Prodromou and Nathanael Nerode"? Again, though, I wonder about the non-free aspects of this. Clumsy and inaccurate, yes. Non-free...? Would it be non-free because it's not possible for the licensee to comply because the license is vague? NN> This isn't supposed to be an actual part of the license, NN> according to the source code for the web page; this should be NN> fixed so that this is clear when *viewing* the web page (it is NN> *not* clear now). That doesn't require changing the license. NN> It does require someone at Creative Commons noticing and NN> dealing with the issue. :-P Probably something as simple as: "Creative Commons", the Creative Commons logo, and the Some Rights Reserved logo are trademarks of Creative Commons. Their use is restricted by Creative Commons <trademark policy> to the extent of applicable law. ...would work better. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]