[od-discuss] Fwd: [cc-licenses] 4.0: fourth (and final) license draft ready for comment

[Herb Lainchbury]

I have read both of the prior drafts in some detail and have not found
anything that I think would cause them (by-sa_4.0d3 and by_4.0d3) to be
considered non-conformant.

The only one thing that took me a while to sort out for myself was the
attribution clauses.  For example, 3. a. 1. D. states that that if you
share the licensed material you must indicate that you have modified it and
if so provide a link to the licensed material in unmodified form if
reasonably practicable.

The way I am currently looking at it is that attribution is an allowed
condition, and this clause is a specification by the publisher of how they
want that attribution to happen, if possible... So, basically I think
that's okay.  I guess my only concern is that this is a bit of a slippery
slope like the exemptions we are currently dealing with, where people may
try to drive a bus through it by attaching all sorts of conditions to the
attribution.  In this specific case though, since it also says "where
reasonably practicable" I think it's fine.

I would appreciate seeing the draft 4 of these when they become available
in the next few days.

H


On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>wrote:

> Hi, as mentioned previously, I'd like this group to be able to say
> that CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 conform with the Open Definition,
> holding them to the same standard any other license is held to.
>
> CC has just published a 4th and maybe final draft of CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0.
> Obviously NonCommercial makes this non-open, but it's easy to ignore
> the NC parts and see whether BY and BY-SA will have problems. I don't
> think they will. Here are a couple areas where licenses have problems,
> and why, BY and BY-SA based on this draft won't (but I encourage
> scrutinizing by all, and if anything found, raising it immediately):
>
> * No endorsement. No permission is given to imply endorsement,
> non-problematic (cf ensure you do not use ... to imply endorsement,
> which is a problem)
> * Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public
> License. Which is OK (cf license not applying if other rights are
> present, which is a problem)
>
> Mike
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Diane Peters <diane at creativecommons.org>
> Date: Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:03 PM
> Subject: [cc-licenses] 4.0: fourth (and final) license draft ready for
> comment
> To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Thanks so much for your patience as we concluded a final review of draft 4
> following our Global Summit in Argentina.  We have now published draft 4 on
> the staging server, and associated explanatory materials on the wiki.
>
>    - Blog post <http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39587>highlighting
>    key changes and issues for comment
>    - BY-NC-SA<
> http://staging.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode>(the
> other five will be published in the next few days)
>    - Comparison of d3 and d4 of BY-NC-SA
> [PDF<
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/0/02/Comparison_draft_3_to_draft_4.pdf
> >
>    ]
>    - Main d4 discussion page
> <http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Draft_4>with further explanations
> and links to individual issues pages with d4
>    treatment
>
> This will be an abbreviated discussion period, lasting only about two
> weeks.  We look forward to hearing from you on this list.
>
> Diane
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>



-- 

Herb Lainchbury, CEO, Dynamic Solutions Inc.
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130912/cf88fb4c/attachment-0001.html>