MJ Ray wrote: >The English licence seems more established than the Scottish one >and contains the problems from the US one, as far as I can tell. >I've not seen an RFC from the English drafters, though.
The English one also contains the unacceptable "clause 7" trademark terms, which is a translation of the boxes which were supposed to be "NOT PART OF THE LICENSE". :-( Furthermore the English version subjects every case to English jurisdiction. Ow. The Scottish drafters just removed clause 7 from their draft, and seem to have fixed the DRM clause. Take a look. http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/cc/cc_sco_licence.html The Scottish version only subjects cases *against* the author to Scottish jurisdiction. Do we think this is free? I think it might be. The "Derogatory Treatment" sections are troublesome, but it appears to be hard to waive any part of the derogatory treatment rights under Scottish law... unfortunately, the license appears to apply derogatory treatment prohibitions on people who are not subject to Scottish law; it's hard to tell how that would actually play out in practice. However, the relevant law states that it does not apply to "a computer program or to any computer-generated work". Depending on how broadly "computer-generated work" is understood in Scottish law, this might provide a good escape clause. In addition, it doesn't apply to "the publication in ... [a] collective work of reference... of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work made for the purposes of such publication". That might also provide a good escape clause. The Scottish CC (by) draft looks very close to DFSG-freeness, in fact closer than the regular CC licenses; I don't see any issues except the Derogatory Treatment business. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]