Re: Public review period for Creative Commons 2.0 license draft
I did a quick review after seeing the message to debian-legal; the *changes* look fine (several are very valuable improvements, such as the addition of or copyright law to the first clause). But I never did review the original licenses, which I should From the point of view of Debian, it looks like * the Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, and ShareAlike licenses are intended to make works DFSG-free. * the others aren't, but are intended to make works freely distributible (material under them can go in the non-free archive) If anyone on debian-legal notices impediments to either thing, they're worth pointing out so that CC can try to fix them. I spotted the following problem in part of the text which isn't actually part of the license: 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. Too broad. This denies legitimate, otherwise-legal uses of the trademarks, such as for commentary and criticism (uses which will not cause confusion about the trademark to the public). It also doesn't specificallly grant a license to use the trademarks. What you want to say is something more like the following: Creative Commons grants everyone a license to use the trademark Creative Commons and related trademarks and logos to indicate to the public that the Work is licensed under the CCPL. Creative Commons reserves all other rights to its trademarks under trademark law; nobody may use the tradmark Creative Commons or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the prior written consent of Creative Commons, except as allowed under trademark law. (rest of paragraph follows as before)
Re: Public review period for Creative Commons 2.0 license draft
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:44:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I spotted the following problem in part of the text which isn't actually part of the license: 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. Too broad. This denies legitimate, otherwise-legal uses of the trademarks, such as for commentary and criticism (uses which will not cause confusion about the trademark to the public). Trademarks can't restrict that sort of thing anyway. They don't grant broad control over the use of the subject, like copyright does. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Public review period for Creative Commons 2.0 license draft
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:44:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I spotted the following problem in part of the text which isn't actually part of the license: 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. Too broad. This denies legitimate, otherwise-legal uses of the trademarks, such as for commentary and criticism (uses which will not cause confusion about the trademark to the public). (and now Andrew's words) Trademarks can't restrict that sort of thing anyway. They don't grant broad control over the use of the subject, like copyright does. Right, which is why the license should not purport to exert such forms of control. Currently it does purport to do so, although it's presumably legally invalid. A nasty and abusive interpretation of the existing text exists: that both parties have agreed, by using a CC license, not to use the Creative Commons trademarks without explicit permission, regardless of trademark law. It is best to avoid the possibility, however remote, of such an abusive interpretation by rewriting the language to say what is actually intended. My apologies for not making it clear previously precisely what the issue was.
Public review period for Creative Commons 2.0 license draft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Creative Commons (http://www.creativecommons.org/) has begun a public comment period for the draft of the next version of their open content (-ish) licenses. Creative Commons has 11+ licenses with a variety of mixins -- requiring attribution, preventing derivative works, allowing derivative works under a copyleft-like ShareAlike provision, and preventing commercial use of works. The draft 2.0 version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license -- which contains all the stipulations in the other licenses mixed in -- is available here: http://creativecommons.org/drafts/license2.0 Comment is welcome on the cc-licenses mailing list: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses What does this have to do with Debian? Well, I figured that an opportunity to give input on new versions of content licenses would be useful for Debianistas, especially considering recent dustups around the GFDL. ~ESP - -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAFp2/ozwefHAKBVERArgeAKCZmM//H7HqS7769588FExpqaNabACgjAJn K8nBbIiU3GhtilnYFRmNR88= =c+J4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Public review period for Creative Commons 2.0 license draft
* Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-27 12:20]: Creative Commons (http://www.creativecommons.org/) has begun a public Sorry for the off-topic posting, but I hope Evan will see it. Evan, your mail bounces: [EMAIL PROTECTED] host lookup did not complete: retry timeout exceeded Please fix this. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public review period for Creative Commons 2.0 license draft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Creative Commons (http://www.creativecommons.org/) has begun a public comment period for the draft of the next version of their open content (-ish) licenses. Creative Commons has 11+ licenses with a variety of mixins -- requiring attribution, preventing derivative works, allowing derivative works under a copyleft-like ShareAlike provision, and preventing commercial use of works. The draft 2.0 version of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license -- which contains all the stipulations in the other licenses mixed in -- is available here: http://creativecommons.org/drafts/license2.0 Comment is welcome on the cc-licenses mailing list: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses What does this have to do with Debian? Well, I figured that an opportunity to give input on new versions of content licenses would be useful for Debianistas, especially considering recent dustups around the GFDL. ~ESP P.S. I sent a copy of this email from my @d.o account, but that's super-busted, so I figured I'd try again from one that works. - -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAFqyVozwefHAKBVERAnPzAKC283h9gqhFua64/gP6JCJyRnPM3QCeJEzB kyefBVv+bvkNkSyX1hY4loA= =hoSY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
