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

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Herb Lainchbury <
herb at dynamic-solutions.com> 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.
>

BY and BY-SA drafts are now available at
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Drafts#Draft_4_Details

There's been some discussion on cc-licenses, see
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-September/thread.html#7409

If, in the end there are possible non-open uses (see
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-September/000615.html"Trademark
attribution loophole?") we could approve with a proviso, as done
with the FDL, see http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ and
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/gfdl/

Maybe this (looking for possible non-open uses, and provisos against)
should be an explicit part of OD evaluation. And if we do approve BY/BY-SA
4.0 or any future license with provisos, I'd like those to be as explicit
as possible (quote problematic license text, precise instruction for how to
avoid), and consistent with other license approvals. I notice
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/gfdl/ says:

"amend the DRM restriction (section 2) to be less broad (for example
restricting to the requirement that the work is available without TPMs)"

I wasn't aware that proviso was there (then all approved CC licenses should
also have it, right?), and those loose instructions are a very high
barrier, requiring all kinds of knowledge to make any sense of, and
preferably a lawyer to consult with in coming up with an implementation of
narrowing.

Mike

ps tangentially relevant, some readers may be amused or appalled by a
recent blog post,
http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/09/22/license-readability/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130923/17187a7a/attachment-0001.html>