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

Fri Sep 13 11:04:17 UTC 2013

I just gave this latest draft a careful line-by-line read over and it 
looks conformant to me (other than the clearly non-conformant NC clause 
in this license type).

Although I don't think it makes it non-conformant, I completely agree 
with Herb that the new requirement in 4.0 to identify the author "in any 
reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym or 
trademark if designated)" is a slippery slope and a cause for concern.  
There's a similar clause in GPLv3 which allows licensors to attach 
additional terms for the "preservation of specified reasonable legal 
notices or author attributions".  In at least a of couple cases, this 
has been abused to require obnoxiously visible brand advertising and 
watermarking (eg. Flexpaper and SugarCRM).

Certainly, the "reasonable" tempers the scope of what a licensor can 
require and brand advertising demands may very well be out of scope; 
however, in any case, it's easy enough for a licensor to use a 
heavy-hand in crafting these attribution obligations, creating 
uncertainty for licensees.

Kent

On 13-09-13 08:10 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130913/22fa8e83/attachment-0001.html>