Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
Yes, I'm quite happy about Jonathan Mitchell's response to comments and will tell him so. For the points I made which he does not accept, he explained his reasons in a clear manner. Well, the DRM stuff is fixed as far as possible with the current legislation, yet keeps the "no DRM lock-outs" intent safe IMO ;-) > The Scottish version only subjects cases *against* the author to Scottish > jurisdiction. Do we think this is free? I think it might be. I'm not sure about that, but as the commentary states "it may be a mirage". > The "Derogatory Treatment" sections are troublesome, but it appears to be > hard > to waive any part of the derogatory treatment rights under Scottish law... Yes, I think fuzzy law is the problem there too. I don't think the licence is adding problems to the situation. The great benefit of the wording is a neat side-step of all the "author name purge" trouble with the US licence while still having a clear "don't misattribute" intent. > 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. [...] The licence chooses law of Scotland, so I think it would apply to this licence anyway, even if not stated. > 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. Yippee. -- MJ Ray (slef), K.Lynn, England, email via http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
