On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 08:48, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > "Attribution" > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0 > > It is not immediately clear that the license's definition of > "Derivative Work": > > | "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work > | and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical > | arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture > | version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, > | condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, > | transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a > | Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the > | purpose of this License. > > includes the kind of *unlimited* modifications that are required for > DFSG-freedom. The derivation processes enumerated here seem all to be > ones that aim at preserving the "spirit" of the original work in > another medium - what about ones that change the spirit but keep the > medium? > > Say for example that "Moby Dick" were released under this license. > Would it be a "deriviative work" under the above definition if I took > the text and subsituted "George W." for every "Ahab" and "Saddam" for > every "Moby"? > > Is "any other form in which the Work may be recast" enough of a > loophole here?
"recast, transformed, or adapted" seems like everything to me. > The end of clause 4a sounds slightly fishy: > > | If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You > | must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any > | reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. If > | You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You > | must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any > | reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested. > > as it seems potentially conflicting with clause 4b that says that you > *must* credit the original author. So there is no way for a modifier > to protect himself agains the possibly orneous burden of retroactively > changing a derived work he has already finalized. To which degree a > modifier is required to track down existing copies that do credit the > original author is not clear. I agree that this is potentially problematic. My major problem with the CC-SA licenses is: "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Derivative Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement." What about encrypting with pgp -m? -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF