On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:47:15 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones
> > that (accurately) credit the author of the original work!
> > As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a
> > CC-licensed novel, but I could be forbidden to accurately
> > acknowledge the authorship of the novel I comment on!
> >   
> No, that's specifically something that you can do. We recommended that
> they only allow requesting a removal from authorship credits, not from
> anywhere in the book. So, if you took a novel I wrote and published an
> annotation called: "Wuthering Heights, from a neo-nazi Perspective",
> and  put "by Francesco Poli and Evan Prodromou", I could reasonably
> ask to be  removed from the authorship credits. However, within the
> book you could  say, "What Evan means here is..." and "When Evan wrote
> this book..." and  so on.

This is something that I would very much like to clarify.
I tried before, but the discussion failed to give a clear answer (see
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the subthread that followed...).

So, in you hypothetical example, you wrote the novel _Wuthering
Heights_, under CC-by-v3 (assuming that the current draft is released
unchanged as the finat license text) and I created an annotated version,
titled _Wuthering Heights, from a neo-nazi Perspective_.
Really hypothetical, but anyway...
Assume that I state

  by Francesco Poli and Evan Prodromou

You request to be removed from authorship credits.  Fairly enough.
I remove your name.
I don't think that the above credit would accurate.

What if I stated the following?

  by Francesco Poli,
  based on Evan Prodromou's _Wuthering Heights_

Is that acceptable?
Or can you request (under clause 4(a)) that your name be removed from
the "based on ..." statement?

> > Don't you feel it's awkward?
> >   
> I don't care about awkward. I care about DFSG-compatible.

Point taken.

> > I think that forcing modifiers to hide the origin of the work is
> > non-free.
> >   
> I have to ask: you read the summary that we sent to CC several times
> and  gave many helpful comments and suggestions. Did you not see the 
> recommendation in the summary on this issue, or has your opinion
> changed  since the summary came out?

I saw it, but I only thought of the potential issue later on.

I did express my concerns about this to you in a private message (in
July 2005), but got no reply.  I discussed the issue on debian-legal,
while talking about a Scotland localized CC license (again, see
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the subthread that followed), but you didn't take part in the
I am sorry for having failed in letting you know about the issue before,
but I have no other means of getting in touch with you...

> > Moreover, there's another aspect that concerns me: I'm compelled to
> > credit the author of the original work (see clause 4(d) of
> > CC-by-sa-nc-v3draft0808060) until I receive a request to purge such
> > credit.
> > Does this mean that I must take action upon request, even after the
> > derivative work has been released, and re-release a revised version?
> > What if I do not have enough time to do that?
> >   
> My understanding is that "to the extent practicable" means that you 
> don't have to do anything if it's going to be an extreme pain in the 
> can. So, changing the author credit on a Web page, say, is
> practicable,  but changing the credit on a broadcast TV show that
> already aired is not.

Ah, I didn't think of this consequence of the "to the extent
practicable" language.  Thanks for pointing out.

But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend.   -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpQ3j1ERFHBw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to