Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
MJ Ray wrote: and maybe some other bits too (CC3.0 is a long licence). The Scotland one is far briefer, especially when viewed in context, and it has the apparently crucial difference of including 'effect or intent'. I'm actually curious as to why this is apparently crucial; I haven't seen a good explanation of this. It seems to be a better formulation (applies to cases where technology effectively restricts rights by accident, and to cases where it was intended to restrict rights but doesn't), but I'm not sure why it's crucial. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 11:47 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: If they wanted to prevent license complication why didn't they base CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't? 'Cause they're not that bright. ;-) Basing 3.0 on CC-Scotland probably seemed too radical and basing it on CC2.5-generic seemed more conservative. People make stupid decisions like that. Most of them probably never even read CC-Scotland, despite our suggestions. Are you talking about this license? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode It doesn't seem to be a shining example of simplicity to me. Here's the relevant section from CC Scotland: 2.2 However, this Licence does not allow you to: 1. impose any terms or any technological measures on the Work, or a Derivative Work, that alter or restrict the terms of this Licence or any rights granted under it or have the effect or intent of restricting the ability of any person to exercise those rights; ...and from CC 3.0 generic draft: You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to them under the License. The Scottish one has a nice brevity in that it combines concerns about DRM and extra license terms, and restrictions on verbatim and modified copies, in one sentence. Otherwise, I don't see an order-of-magnitude difference in the simplicity of the text. ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you talking about this license? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode As far as I know, yes. It doesn't seem to be a shining example of simplicity to me. Here's the relevant section from CC Scotland: 2.2 However, this Licence does not allow you to: 1. impose any terms or any technological measures on the Work, or a Derivative Work, that alter or restrict the terms of this Licence or any rights granted under it or have the effect or intent of restricting the ability of any person to exercise those rights; and from CC 3.0 generic draft: You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to them under the License. The Scottish one has a nice brevity in that it combines concerns about DRM and extra license terms, and restrictions on verbatim and modified copies, in one sentence. Otherwise, I don't see an order-of-magnitude difference in the simplicity of the text. The Scottish quote above seems equivalent to CC 3.0draft+parallel's: [...] You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License unless You also make a copy or phonorecord of the Work available to the recipient, without additional fee, in at least one medium that does not restrict the ability of a recipient of that copy or phonorecord of the Work to exercise the rights granted to them under the License, provided that that copy or phonorecord of the Work is at least as accessible to the recipient as a practical matter as the Restricted Format. You may not sublicense the Work. [...] You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise their rights granted under the License. [...] You may not offer or impose any terms on the Adaptation that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise of the rights granted under the License unless You also make a copy or phonorecord of the Work available to the recipient, without additional fee, in at least one medium that does not restrict the ability of a recipient of that copy or phonorecord of the Work to exercise the rights granted to them under the License, provided that that copy or phonorecord of the Work is at least as accessible to the recipient as a practical matter as the Restricted Format. [...] You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Adaptation that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Adaptation from You to exercise their rights granted under the License. [...] and maybe some other bits too (CC3.0 is a long licence). The Scotland one is far briefer, especially when viewed in context, and it has the apparently crucial difference of including 'effect or intent'. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
MJ Ray wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html [...] The main motivation was to prevent license complication, *not* to prohibit parallel distribution. This is emphasized quite clearly in that message. If they wanted to prevent license complication why didn't they base CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't? 'Cause they're not that bright. ;-) Basing 3.0 on CC-Scotland probably seemed too radical and basing it on CC2.5-generic seemed more conservative. People make stupid decisions like that. Most of them probably never even read CC-Scotland, despite our suggestions. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html [...] The main motivation was to prevent license complication, *not* to prohibit parallel distribution. This is emphasized quite clearly in that message. If they wanted to prevent license complication why didn't they base CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't? Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
MJ Ray wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html Hope that helps, It really does help a lot. in any case i do not think (and that judgment was shared by a number of other project leads) that these fringe scenarios are a good reason to make the licenses more complicated The main motivation was to prevent license complication, *not* to prohibit parallel distribution. This is emphasized quite clearly in that message. Therefore I conclude that we can interpret that CC3.0 draft means what it says and parallel distribution is OK. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
MJ Ray wrote: Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 2006-15-08 at 12:46 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general resolution? You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though. How does one start a CC GR? The main way that I've seen changes in the CC licenses happen has been through discussion on the cc-licenses mailing list. I have no idea what kind of voting process CC has. One problem is that we are being told that our suggestions have been rejected by some decision-making process, but there appears to be no record of the discussion, decision or process! Meanwhile, I feel that CC's statement assumes that debian's compromise process will allow them to forbid TPM. This looks a bit asymmetric to me. debian mostly works in the open, but I can't get much information about CC's decisions into the open. It's very difficult to make good suggestions in that situation. It feels like we're trying to give directions through a maze we haven't seen while blinded. Yep. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Steve Langasek wrote: Is this interpretation in keeping with how the CC folks understand the license? We don't know. Still. Doesn't that suck? CC is not entirely transparent unfortunately. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
MJ Ray wrote: In http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003950.html I asked: please can someone tell us where to find the record of the rejections by international affiliates and how the CC decision-making works? I've had a bit of a search of creativecommons.org but haven't found details. I thank the cc-nl lead for explaining his motives here, but I'm only guessing about the others. Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something. The lack of reply to that bit has been deafening so far. If someone who can post there feels like highlighting the request, please do. Reports of other decisions at the iSummit (things like 'hum votes' and strong bias from the presiding members) fill me with FUD. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Evan Prodromou wrote: Commented in another post if it really prohibited parallel distribution, I would think it's non-free -- but I think it does *not* prohibit parallel distribution. So I think it *is* free. Yeah, I'd like to believe that. Now, here's the funny part: if the board and the international affiliates of CC vigorously opposed the idea of parallel distribution I'm not sure they did. If they really did, then I guess we can't assume that it allows parallel distribution. But I really don't think they did. and had a clause explicitly permitting it removed from the license, They may have simply opposed the complexity and apparent support given to DRM by an explicit clause. Everything I've read indicates that that's the case, but doesn't indicate that they actually per se opposed parallel distribution. Unfortunately we have a lack of information on their intentions. can we reasonably assume that the license as it stands still allows parallel distribution? Well, I think given the lack of clarity of their intentions we can assume it means what it says in plain English. Getting some clarity on their intentions would be *way* better, though. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:37:08 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: AFAICT, CC seems to interpret the clause this way, since the explicit parallel distribution proviso was *removed* because of strong opposition from many people at a CC summit... AFAICT, you're speculating based on the same limited information that I have at my disposal. Yes, I admit I am. There are many reasons someone might object to such a clause that *don't* contradict our goals, and I want to hear CC's own answer to this question. I would be interested too. Has anyone from the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup already asked for a clarification? In http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003950.html I asked: please can someone tell us where to find the record of the rejections by international affiliates and how the CC decision-making works? I've had a bit of a search of creativecommons.org but haven't found details. I thank the cc-nl lead for explaining his motives here, but I'm only guessing about the others. The lack of reply to that bit has been deafening so far. If someone who can post there feels like highlighting the request, please do. Reports of other decisions at the iSummit (things like 'hum votes' and strong bias from the presiding members) fill me with FUD. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:25:31 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote: [...] Creative Commons did what we recommended here: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary That is, they limited the removal requirements only to authorship credits. I think the general consensus was that it's OK to request reasonable modifications to metadata like authorship credits, but not to request modifications to the work itself. Considering that we think it's OK for the author to request to be /added/ to the authorship credits, Let me understand this better, because I cannot remember having discussed it before... Is it OK for the author to request to be added to the credits even when satisfying the request would cause the authorship credits to become inaccurate? Can I request to be added to the authorship credits of a work I took really really little part in? Can I do the same for a work I never contributed to in any manner? it seems strange to say that it's incompatible for them to request to be /removed /from the authorship credits. This is an interesting line of reasoning, let's see where it brings us to... -- 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 pgpAqCJXt6yNh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:29:34 -0400 Michael Poole wrote: Francesco Poli writes: [...] Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones that (accurately) credit the author of the original work! The Berne Convention (section 6bis), and droit d'auteur regimes even before ratification of the Berne Convention, allow an author to object to -- presumably in court -- any modifications of his work(s) that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation. [...] Thus, if the author is worried enough about attributions that they dislike (and note that some upstream authors of software in Debian are notorious about this), he is likely to get his way even if the license does not explicitly require removing his name. This may be true, but the fact the laws give authors some right, does not mean that reserving or using this right is compatible with the DFSG. Many author's economic rights cannot be (fully) reserved, if one wants the work to be DFSG-free. Author's moral rights are inalienable, so the issue is a bit different for them, but I'd rather avoid opening that can of worms right now... -- 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 pgpeGRlIJyug2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
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 discussion. 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 pgpQ3j1ERFHBw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:25:31 +0200 Evan Prodromou wrote: Considering that we think it's OK for the author to request to be /added/ to the authorship credits, Let me understand this better, because I cannot remember having discussed it before... Is it OK for the author to request to be added to the credits even when satisfying the request would cause the authorship credits to become inaccurate? Can I request to be added to the authorship credits of a work I took really really little part in? Can I do the same for a work I never contributed to in any manner? Why would it be? And what reason do you have to think these bizarre queries are related to the issue at hand? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:37:08 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:06:13 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: OTOH, if CC intends that this clause prevents ever making the Work available on TPM-encumbered media (which I don't think is the plain-text reading of this clause), I don't believe it's DFSG-compliant. AFAICT, CC seems to interpret the clause this way, since the explicit parallel distribution proviso was *removed* because of strong opposition from many people at a CC summit... AFAICT, you're speculating based on the same limited information that I have at my disposal. Yes, I admit I am. There are many reasons someone might object to such a clause that *don't* contradict our goals, and I want to hear CC's own answer to this question. I would be interested too. Has anyone from the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup already asked for a clarification? -- 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 pgpUdklF1k22k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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! Don't you feel it's awkward? No. I feel that it is very reasonable for the author of a work to be able to request to not be credited if for some reason he does not want to be associated with some derivative works. I think that forcing modifiers to hide the origin of the work is non-free. I don't. I think that DFSG #3 was never intended to cover this kind of clauses, and instead that this is a right which we should fully support. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:06:13 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: OTOH, if CC intends that this clause prevents ever making the Work available on TPM-encumbered media (which I don't think is the plain-text reading of this clause), I don't believe it's DFSG-compliant. AFAICT, CC seems to interpret the clause this way, since the explicit parallel distribution proviso was *removed* because of strong opposition from many people at a CC summit... AFAICT, you're speculating based on the same limited information that I have at my disposal. There are many reasons someone might object to such a clause that *don't* contradict our goals, and I want to hear CC's own answer to this question. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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! Don't you feel it's awkward? No. I feel that it is very reasonable for the author of a work to be able to request to not be credited if for some reason he does not want to be associated with some derivative works. Creative Commons did what we recommended here: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary That is, they limited the removal requirements only to authorship credits. I think the general consensus was that it's OK to request reasonable modifications to metadata like authorship credits, but not to request modifications to the work itself. Considering that we think it's OK for the author to request to be /added/ to the authorship credits, it seems strange to say that it's incompatible for them to request to be /removed /from the authorship credits. --Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
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. Don't you feel it's awkward? I don't care about awkward. I care about DFSG-compatible. 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? 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. -Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:09:52 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: This still concerns me... I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal, but I'm not yet convinced that this clause passes the DFSG. What I do not understand basically boils down to: How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid an accurate credit and meet the DFSG at the same time? [...] And why do you think this violates the DFSG? Clause 3, which you are citing, says that the license must allow derived works, and must allow derivates to be licensed under the same terms as the original license. I see nothing in there that even remotely implies the original author can't take their name out of it. Leaving aside practical issues, how are you arguing that a request to remove a name either changes the licensing terms or prohibits derivation? 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! Don't you feel it's awkward? I think that forcing modifiers to hide the origin of the work is non-free. 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? Isn't this a restriction placed on my future life, after I released the derivative work (when I fullfilled all my obligations, apart from the ones that were yet unknown)? -- 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 pgp6SGZTUpXzq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:06:13 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: OTOH, if CC intends that this clause prevents ever making the Work available on TPM-encumbered media (which I don't think is the plain-text reading of this clause), I don't believe it's DFSG-compliant. AFAICT, CC seems to interpret the clause this way, since the explicit parallel distribution proviso was *removed* because of strong opposition from many people at a CC summit... -- 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 pgpZb6BsOsoAn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Hi Evan, Sorry for being late to the party, but I thought I'd chime in anyway with my 2ยข on the question. On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:26:13AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this: Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the DFSG? snip We'd originally negotiated a parallel distribution proviso, but the extra clause was later removed. So, the CCPL 3.0 license draft has this language for DRM restrictions: You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to them under the License. So the language being replaced seems to be: You [being the licensee, not the licensor] may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. That's clearly non-free, as it says you can't ever distribute the work by TPM-encumbered means. But the new draft language doesn't say that: it says you can't impose any technological measures on the Work *that restrict the ability of the recipient to exercise their rights*. If I take care to ensure that the recipient has access to an unencumbered copy, in addition to the encumbered copy, then to the extent I have imposed technological measures at all, they don't seem to actually restrict the recipient's exercise of rights under the license. Is this interpretation in keeping with how the CC folks understand the license? If so, I agree with Marco d'Itri's comments in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: there seems to be no need at all for a parallel distribution clause. OTOH, if CC intends that this clause prevents ever making the Work available on TPM-encumbered media (which I don't think is the plain-text reading of this clause), I don't believe it's DFSG-compliant. Since we negotiated the license changes, Debian has had a GR to allow works licensed under the GFDL into main. The GFDL has the following anti-DRM clause: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. GR 2006-01 says, in part, Similarly, we do not think that GFDL covered documentation is non-free because of the measures taken in the license against misuse of DRM-protected media. As you yourself noted later, this isn't part of the text of the GR that passed. The actual resolution doesn't address the DRM question at all; the only way I can personally understand the claim that the GFDL does not conflict with the DFSG is that we believe the *intent* of the GFDL is to prevent using DRM to limit users' rights rather than to prevent distributing on DRM-encumbered media per se, and therefore the license's ambiguity on this point is a blemish that can be overlooked. In my personal opinion, the question boils down to these points: 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? Neither; it is a position statement that the GFDL should be read in a way that is compatible with the DFSG. Since the GR does not *say* it's an exception, it's not an exception; and it's not a clarification of principles because it hasn't attempted to clarify anything. 3. If so, is the anti-DRM clause in the CCPL 3.0 draft similar enough to the FDL's anti-DRM clause for us to consider it compatible with the DFSG? I consider it compatible with the DFSG because it's sufficiently *dissimilar* to the FDL's clause. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:47:32 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment. Please show me where and why I am wrong: I would be happy to be persuaded that this is not a freeness issue. If it's important that Chinese Dissidents be able to release software without putting their name all over it or telling anyone about it, It's important that someone can release software (original or modified) in a completely anonymous way. it would seem logical for them to be able to ensure that they be able to demand people remove any credits that they may have accidently left on a piece of software. That's useless. If the guy has accidentally disclosed his/her real identity in a credit left in a work released under a CC license, anyone can redistribute the unmodified work, thus contributing to spread the disclosed identity. Requiring that the problematic credit be purged from Adaptations and Collections does very little (if not nothing) to cure the identity disclosure in the unmodified Work. I don't think that this clause was designed with such a scenario in mind. I'm pretty sure that its goal is preventing that an ugly Adaptation reflects on the Original Author's reputation. As I already stated elsewhere, clarifying that the Adaptation is not the Original Work, but the result of modifications made by someone else, is IMO sufficient to prevent any negative impacts on the Original Author's reputation. -- 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 pgpZpcS3l0lkZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: This still concerns me... I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal, but I'm not yet convinced that this clause passes the DFSG. What I do not understand basically boils down to: How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid an accurate credit and meet the DFSG at the same time? This one time, at band camp, Matthew Garrett said: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment. Please show me where and why I am wrong: I would be happy to be persuaded that this is not a freeness issue. If it's important that Chinese Dissidents be able to release software without putting their name all over it or telling anyone about it, it would seem logical for them to be able to ensure that they be able to demand people remove any credits that they may have accidently left on a piece of software. This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: I don't think that this clause was designed with such a scenario in mind. I'm pretty sure that its goal is preventing that an ugly Adaptation reflects on the Original Author's reputation. As I already stated elsewhere, clarifying that the Adaptation is not the Original Work, but the result of modifications made by someone else, is IMO sufficient to prevent any negative impacts on the Original Author's reputation. And why do you think this violates the DFSG? Clause 3, which you are citing, says that the license must allow derived works, and must allow derivates to be licensed under the same terms as the original license. I see nothing in there that even remotely implies the original author can't take their name out of it. Leaving aside practical issues, how are you arguing that a request to remove a name either changes the licensing terms or prohibits derivation? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:44:54 +0800 Weakish Jiang wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Please note the adjective effective! Questions: A) Why are these two clauses different from one another? B) Is the difference relevant with respect to DFSG compliance? C) Does specifying that only *effective* technological measures are forbidden imply that parallel distribution (of DRM-encumbered and DRM-*un*encumbered copies) is allowed for Adaptations? It's strange that these two clauses are different, but I think they are equivalent. Well, there's a significant word in one which is absent from the other. I don't think they can be construed as equivalent. It seems that CreativeCommoons wants to fight against DRM using the CC license. Indeed, we are talking about this clause and trying to determine whether CC is doing that in a DFSG-free manner or not... P.S.: Please do not reply to my e-mail address Cc:ing the list, since I didn't asked for that. Instead, reply to the list only. Thanks. -- 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 pgp0fIUsrZrM9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:36:11 +0800 Weakish Jiang wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: What is unclear to me is: which license am I analyzing? It seems to be by-nc-sa (v3draft). Why isn't there any highlighting for the clauses that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc? I think that clarity in this respect would be very important, since there's no way that works under CC-by-nc-sa can comply with the DFSG! It's only a draft. And it's easy to distinguish clauses that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc. Well, I can *suppose* that clauses 4(c) and 4(e) constitute the Noncommercial License Element, but I cannot be sure until I see some clear indication in CC v3 drafts... Which clauses are different between by-sa and by is even less clear to me. Sure it's only a draft, but it's a public draft we are asked to comment on! If it fails to clarify how the final texts *could* look like, it's not very useful as a public draft open for commentary! [on clause 4(a)] I think that stating This Adaptation is based on the Work _foo_ by James O. Hacker is an accurate credit, as long as it's true. Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a credit seems to fail DFSG#3. I don't think so. DFSG3 doesn't forbid some restrictions as long as they are necessary or reasonable. Image that I made a work based on the work _foo_ by James O. Hacker, but it turns out to be a very terrible work, full of mistakes. People may think James O. Hacker's work is not very good work too. In this case, James O. Hacker may want me to remove hir credit. This is quite reasonable.DFSG3 shouldn't forbid this. I don't see the problem, as long as it's clear that the work has been modified by you and it's not the original work by James O. Hacker. Your mistakes are not going to reflect on James' reputation. CC-by-sa-nc-v3 license draft spends many words to make sure that Adaptations are clearly marked as such and not passed off as the Original Work (see clause 3(b), for instance). Forcing you to occultate the origin of your Adaptation is an additional restriction: I fail to see it as necessary or even reasonable. For instance, the GNU GPL v2 has no such restriction and I don't hear many people complaining that their reputation is too weakly protected... [...] That is to say: I can publish an annotated version of the novel, but I could be forbidden to acknowledge the (true and correct) authorship of the novel itself! I cannot understand how this could be seen as DFSG-free... I think it's the author's right to do so. Copyright and author's right laws give many exclusive rights to authors/copyright holders. Some of these rights can be reserved without making the work non-free, but many others cannot. Saying that a restriction is an author's right says very few (if not nothing) about its freeness... And you always can add this to the copyright notice: This work is based on another work, whose author doesn't wish to put hir credit here. Of course I can (and I probably would, even when not forced by the license, as a courtesy to that author): but is it DFSG-free to *legally require* me to do so? I'm not convinced it is... [on clause 4(b)] It's worth noting that CC licenses have a mandatory version-upgrade mechanism and also a mandatory jurisdiction-change mechanism. This can weaken the copyleft of ShareAlike licenses, and possibly trigger weird clauses such as sue me in Scotland (found in CC-by-2.5/scotland, for instance). Authors, you have been warned! This is not a problem. Just think about dual licensing or GPL's example: under version 2.0 or any other license published by FSF. The crucial difference is that the GNU GPL *allows* a version-upgrade mechanism *without* forcing authors to adopt it. You can release works under the GNU GPL v2 only, if you want to avoid licensing under yet unknown terms and conditions (I've been doing so for quite some time, debian-legal regulars may recall about my Savannah dispute[1]...). CC license, on the contrary, implement a *mandatory* version-upgrade and jurisdiction-change mechanism: there seem to be no way to release under a CC license without allowing the recipient to choose to follow later or other jurisdiction-specific versions of the same license. [1] http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [on clause 4(c)] Of course it won't appear in CC-by and CC-by-sa. The draft is not for all the CC licenses, so it don't need to indicate this. Have you got an official statement from CC about which clauses are or are not to be considered drafts for by-sa-v3 and by-v3? If you have, I would very like to see it. [on clause 4(d)] I mean: I incorporate a short poem by Jack F. Poet into a novel that includes 21 chapters written by Alice E. Writer and 25 chapters written by me: the credit for Jack F. Poet must be at least as prominent as the credits for the other authors?!? This only happens when a credit for all
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli wrote: What is unclear to me is: which license am I analyzing? It seems to be by-nc-sa (v3draft). Why isn't there any highlighting for the clauses that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc? I think that clarity in this respect would be very important, since there's no way that works under CC-by-nc-sa can comply with the DFSG! It's only a draft. And it's easy to distinguish clauses that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc. Clause 4(a) states, in part: | If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You | must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection | any credit as required by clause 4(d), as requested. If You | create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, | to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any | credit as required by clause 4(d), as requested. This still concerns me... What I do not understand basically boils down to: How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid an accurate credit and meet the DFSG at the same time? I think that stating This Adaptation is based on the Work _foo_ by James O. Hacker is an accurate credit, as long as it's true. Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a credit seems to fail DFSG#3. I don't think so. DFSG3 doesn't forbid some restrictions as long as they are necessary or reasonable. Image that I made a work based on the work _foo_ by James O. Hacker, but it turns out to be a very terrible work, full of mistakes. People may think James O. Hacker's work is not very good work too. In this case, James O. Hacker may want me to remove hir credit. This is quite reasonable.DFSG3 shouldn't forbid this. A more concrete example could be the one found in http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html with some slight adaptations: an author who made a novel available under an Attribution 3.0 license could give notice to disallow an annotated version that accurately credits him/her as the author of the original novel. That is to say: I can publish an annotated version of the novel, but I could be forbidden to acknowledge the (true and correct) authorship of the novel itself! I cannot understand how this could be seen as DFSG-free... I think it's the author's right to do so. And you always can add this to the copyright notice: This work is based on another work, whose author doesn't wish to put hir credit here. Clause 4(b) states, in part: |b. You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under | the terms of this License, a later version of this License with | the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative | Commons license for another jurisdiction that contains the | same License Elements as this License (e.g., | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.1 Japan). It's worth noting that CC licenses have a mandatory version-upgrade mechanism and also a mandatory jurisdiction-change mechanism. This can weaken the copyleft of ShareAlike licenses, and possibly trigger weird clauses such as sue me in Scotland (found in CC-by-2.5/scotland, for instance). Authors, you have been warned! This is not a problem. Just think about dual licensing or GPL's example: under version 2.0 or any other license published by FSF. Clause 4(c) states, in part: |c. You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in | Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended | for or directed toward commercial advantage or private | monetary compensation. This clause fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#6, as it does in CC-v2.0 licenses (see http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html). I hope that clause 4(c) is entirely absent from CC-by and CC-by-sa, but unfortunately there's no clear indication in this draft. Of course it won't appear in CC-by and CC-by-sa. The draft is not for all the CC licenses, so it don't need to indicate this. Clause 4(d) states, in part: | in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such | credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors | of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these | credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits | for the other contributing authors. Wait, wait. Credit must be at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. Even if the licensor's contribution is not comparable to others? I mean: I incorporate a short poem by Jack F. Poet into a novel that includes 21 chapters written by Alice E. Writer and 25 chapters written by me: the credit for Jack F. Poet must be at least as prominent as the credits for the other authors?!? This only happens when a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears In your case, you may don't want to put such a credit in your novel. If this is the case, it seems that one of the known issues with
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli wrote: While analyzing the license draft, I noted something strange. The anti-DRM clause quoted by Evan is, substantially, the one found in clause 4(a): | You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that | restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to | exercise their rights granted under the License. There's another one in clause 4(b), which is very similar, but not equal: | You may not impose any effective technological measures on the | Adaptation that restrict the ability of a recipient of the | Adaptation from You to exercise their rights granted under the | License. Please note the adjective effective! Questions: A) Why are these two clauses different from one another? B) Is the difference relevant with respect to DFSG compliance? C) Does specifying that only *effective* technological measures are forbidden imply that parallel distribution (of DRM-encumbered and DRM-*un*encumbered copies) is allowed for Adaptations? It's strange that these two clauses are different, but I think they are equivalent. It seems that CreativeCommoons wants to fight against DRM using the CC license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that stating This Adaptation is based on the Work _foo_ by James O. Hacker is an accurate credit, as long as it's true. Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a credit seems to fail DFSG#3. It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment. Please show me where and why I am wrong: I would be happy to be persuaded that this is not a freeness issue. Regards, -- 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 pgpLd11ksQZbw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to hear a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment. Please show me where and why I am wrong: I would be happy to be persuaded that this is not a freeness issue. If it's important that Chinese Dissidents be able to release software without putting their name all over it or telling anyone about it, it would seem logical for them to be able to ensure that they be able to demand people remove any credits that they may have accidently left on a piece of software. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 2006-15-08 at 12:46 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general resolution? You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though. How does one start a CC GR? The main way that I've seen changes in the CC licenses happen has been through discussion on the cc-licenses mailing list. I have no idea what kind of voting process CC has. One problem is that we are being told that our suggestions have been rejected by some decision-making process, but there appears to be no record of the discussion, decision or process! Meanwhile, I feel that CC's statement assumes that debian's compromise process will allow them to forbid TPM. This looks a bit asymmetric to me. debian mostly works in the open, but I can't get much information about CC's decisions into the open. It's very difficult to make good suggestions in that situation. It feels like we're trying to give directions through a maze we haven't seen while blinded. [...] Yes, non-subscribers aren't allowed to post to the list. That didn't seem to be it. I could not subscribe and it seemed that my posts were silently blackholed. However, I talked to the CC people about it and your email address is now whitelisted. So, yes, you are indeed allowed to post. Thank you 1000. It seems to work now. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
From: Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] If they were going to play the heavy with us, why would they bother making all the other changes we asked for? What would be the point? To give enough concessions to make a favourable GR more probable. It's pretty clear that the Debian Project is not militantly united against anti-TPM clauses. [...] Which is relevant how, except for snap GR votes? There is clearly a valid concern when licences start to dictate which media can be used for particular software. Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general resolution? You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though. How does one start a CC GR? 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? Neither. It was a single-point compromise interpretation. So, the other two questions asked are irrelevant. It's not clear to me what that means. Does that mean that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL is compatible with the DFSG, or not? Yes, due to GR 2006-01. Thank you! I am not allowed to post to cc-licenses at this time. Why not? Because of cc-licenses-owner's or ibiblio's posting rules, as far as I can tell. I have discussed other aspects, including some downsides of TPM-bans, at http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/fc-uk-discuss/2006-August/001173.html which is a more public list than cc-, as far as I know. So, you're complaining to a third party? What good does that do? Maybe it'd be better to make this more direct. It is a more public list than cc-licenses and its subscribers are relatively active, including some who attended the infamous iSummit. It would be better to be more direct, but I think CC so far has been a good example of how not to consult. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Mon, 2006-14-08 at 01:43 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: As usual, please feel free to forward any of my words to CC. I'm very busy and probably won't manage to do so myself. Saying it yourself is a huge benefit. Reviewing the license, everything we were originally worried about appears to have been fixed (with the possible exception of the DRM business), and no new problems seem to have been introduced. It all looks DFSG-free to me, with the exception of keep intact, noted below. Yes. The keep intact phraseology is still present, and still mildly troublesome: You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. Don Armstrong noticed this too, and we made a note of it, but it was pretty mild. The wording is almost directly lifted from the GPLv2, section 1: You may copy and distribute verbatim copies [...], provided that you [...] keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; [...] It's hard to say that some particular wording is incompatible with the DFSG if it's in other accepted licenses. I hate to bring this up at the last minute, but it would be a definite improvement to replace notices with legal notices in this clause, or to do something similar to clarify it. Feel free to bring it up. The changes from the 2.x version are largely due to an effort to make the licenses compatible with the DFSG. Congrats folks! Congrats yourself! Your analysis and suggestions on the 2.0 licenses were extremely important in getting us to this point, and they're greatly appreciated. Commented in another post if it really prohibited parallel distribution, I would think it's non-free -- but I think it does *not* prohibit parallel distribution. So I think it *is* free. Yeah, I'd like to believe that. Now, here's the funny part: if the board and the international affiliates of CC vigorously opposed the idea of parallel distribution and had a clause explicitly permitting it removed from the license, can we reasonably assume that the license as it stands still allows parallel distribution? ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:05:56 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: This is the CCv3draft0808060 anti-DRM clause, as quoted by Evan: | You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that | restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to | exercise the rights granted to them under the License. While analyzing the license draft, I noted something strange. The anti-DRM clause quoted by Evan is, substantially, the one found in clause 4(a): | You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that | restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to | exercise their rights granted under the License. There's another one in clause 4(b), which is very similar, but not equal: | You may not impose any effective technological measures on the | Adaptation that restrict the ability of a recipient of the | Adaptation from You to exercise their rights granted under the | License. Please note the adjective effective! Questions: A) Why are these two clauses different from one another? B) Is the difference relevant with respect to DFSG compliance? C) Does specifying that only *effective* technological measures are forbidden imply that parallel distribution (of DRM-encumbered and DRM-*un*encumbered copies) is allowed for Adaptations? -- 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 pgpp84B3SBoKh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:05:56 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:26:13 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote: So, I have big news and a big question. Big news Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of their license suite: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017 [...] http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report Thanks for the URLs. I will look at the license as soon as I can... OK, here we go! I managed to find the time to analyze a license draft. The weblog entry cited above refers to a mailing list announcement that include some documents as attachments: * BY-NC-SA v 3 (080806) (US).pdf * BY-NC-SA v3 (0808060) (generic).pdf * 2ndmarkupDRMclause#2.pdf They are described as ] drafts of the US v 3.0 license, the new generic v 3.0 ] license and the parallel distribution language. In the following I comment on the draft whose filename is `BY-NC-SA v3 (0808060) (generic).pdf'. The usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD. Please note that the anti-DRM clause is (will be?) discussed elsewhere in this thread, hence I won't comment any further on it. The title of this draft is | Creative Commons | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Clause 1(l) states: |l. License Elements means the following high-level license | attributes as selected by Licensor and indicated in the title | of this License: Attribution, Noncommercial, ShareAlike. If I understand correctly, CC decided to drop the Noderivs license element. This is good news, if confirmed: one blatantly non-free option is gone! Unfortunately, the Noncommercial license element is still there... What is unclear to me is: which license am I analyzing? It seems to be by-nc-sa (v3draft). Why isn't there any highlighting for the clauses that vanish in by-sa, by, and by-nc? I think that clarity in this respect would be very important, since there's no way that works under CC-by-nc-sa can comply with the DFSG! Clause 4(a) states, in part: | If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You | must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection | any credit as required by clause 4(d), as requested. If You | create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, | to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any | credit as required by clause 4(d), as requested. This still concerns me... I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal, but I'm not yet convinced that this clause passes the DFSG. The last discussion on this topic that I recall starts more or less with http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[EMAIL PROTECTED] What I do not understand basically boils down to: How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid an accurate credit and meet the DFSG at the same time? I think that stating This Adaptation is based on the Work _foo_ by James O. Hacker is an accurate credit, as long as it's true. Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a credit seems to fail DFSG#3. A more concrete example could be the one found in http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html with some slight adaptations: an author who made a novel available under an Attribution 3.0 license could give notice to disallow an annotated version that accurately credits him/her as the author of the original novel. That is to say: I can publish an annotated version of the novel, but I could be forbidden to acknowledge the (true and correct) authorship of the novel itself! I cannot understand how this could be seen as DFSG-free... Clause 4(b) states, in part: |b. You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under | the terms of this License, a later version of this License with | the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative | Commons license for another jurisdiction that contains the | same License Elements as this License (e.g., | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.1 Japan). It's worth noting that CC licenses have a mandatory version-upgrade mechanism and also a mandatory jurisdiction-change mechanism. This can weaken the copyleft of ShareAlike licenses, and possibly trigger weird clauses such as sue me in Scotland (found in CC-by-2.5/scotland, for instance). Authors, you have been warned! Clause 4(c) states, in part: |c. You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in | Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended | for or directed toward commercial advantage or private | monetary compensation. This clause fails DFSG#1 and DFSG#6, as it does in CC-v2.0 licenses (see http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html). I hope that clause 4(c) is entirely absent from CC-by and CC-by-sa, but unfortunately there's no clear indication in this draft. Clause 4(d) states, in part: | in the case of a Adaptation or
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that stating This Adaptation is based on the Work _foo_ by James O. Hacker is an accurate credit, as long as it's true. Allowing James O. Hacker to force me to purge such a credit seems to fail DFSG#3. It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Mon, 2006-14-08 at 21:28 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: I understand your point: you have already expressed your standpoint repeatedly with CC folks, but they decided to listen to other parties and removed the parallel distribution proviso. At least, I imagine you have done so... Yes, both as my own opinion and on behalf of Debian. However, apparently there's been some firm resistance. Now you think that maybe other people talking about the issue could help more than the n-th reiteration from you, right? Exactly. Also, other people will probably also have fresher arguments and a better perspective than I do. In any case, consider pointing cc-licenses subscribers to single debian-legal messages and/or threads that you think express our concerns well... A good idea, but people usually reply better to conversations going on around them. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
As usual, please feel free to forward any of my words to CC. I'm very busy and probably won't manage to do so myself. Evan Prodromou wrote: So, I have big news and a big question. Big news Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of their license suite: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017 Reviewing the license, everything we were originally worried about appears to have been fixed (with the possible exception of the DRM business), and no new problems seem to have been introduced. It all looks DFSG-free to me, with the exception of keep intact, noted below. The credits rule was restricted all the way down to the point where it only applies to a list of all contributors, which renders it very innocuous -- this goes further than we asked for. The keep intact phraseology is still present, and still mildly troublesome: You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. *ALL* notices that refer to the License? Heck, I could make up my own extremely offensive notice which referred to the license -- not a copyright notice, but some sort of bizarre rant, talking about how I hate the license and giving a bogus interpretation of it. (People have attached weirder stuff to GPL-licensed works.) People should use phrasing like that in the Apache 2.0 license when drafting clauses like this: You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and However, I think the bad CC notice clause doesn't make most works under the license non-free: it only renders non-free works where someone *actually* includes such an obnoxious, inappropriate notice, and claims that it's covered by the notice clause. This sort of notice is clearly not CC's intent for the notice clause. If it were restricted to legal notices, which I believe is what it's supposed to refer to, that would probably eliminate my concerns about this completely. I hate to bring this up at the last minute, but it would be a definite improvement to replace notices with legal notices in this clause, or to do something similar to clarify it. The changes from the 2.x version are largely due to an effort to make the licenses compatible with the DFSG. Over the last year, the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup has worked with Creative Commons to smooth out the rough edges of license. DDs have already seen it, but there's a report here on the work: http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report Congrats folks! Big question The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this: Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the DFSG? Commented in another post if it really prohibited parallel distribution, I would think it's non-free -- but I think it does *not* prohibit parallel distribution. So I think it *is* free. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:26:13 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote: So, I have big news and a big question. Big news Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of their license suite: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017 [...] http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report Thanks for the URLs. I will look at the license as soon as I can... Big question [...] The big question for debian-legal is whether the new license draft is compatible with the DFSG. I hope that debian-legal subscribers will look over the new license carefully and post opinions here or on the cc-licenses mailing list. I hope I can manage to analyze the rest of the license in the next few days, but it won't be easy... Too many new drafts to review in this August! :-( Creative Commons met almost all of the Workgroup's recommendations, and after a lot of review we've agreed that the works licensed solely under the CCPL 3.0 draft would be Free... with one exception. Ouch! :-/ The exception is that the CCPL 3.0 has an anti-DRM (or anti-TPM) provision that doesn't allow distribution with copy protection features. The traditional wisdom is that prohibiting use of TPM puts an undue restriction on developers and doesn't let them experiment with TPM-required platforms. (Some console game systems, for example, require TPM for a program to run on the system.) Restricting the systems that a program can be ported to is incompatible with DFSG#3. Right. One way to make anti-TPM clauses compatible with the DFSG is to allow parallel distribution -- that is, a developer can create a TPM'd version of a work as long as they also make available a cleartext one that people can modify, copy, etc. This lets developers experiment, but also lets downstream users exercise their rights, too. Exactly. We'd originally negotiated a parallel distribution proviso, but the extra clause was later removed. By reading the announcement I learn that such removal was due to strong opposition from other interested parties, rather than the belief that it was unneeded (being implicitly allowed by the wording of the clause or something similar). This seems to mean that Creative Commons interprets the clause as forbidding parallel distribution of DRM-encumbered and DRM-unencumbered copies... Not a good start. :-( So, the CCPL 3.0 license draft has this language for DRM restrictions: You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to them under the License. Since we negotiated the license changes, Debian has had a GR to allow works licensed under the GFDL into main. The GFDL has the following anti-DRM clause: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. [...] The Debian Creative Commons Workgroup couldn't come to a clear conclusion on the matter, and it's not 100% clear what the effect of GR 2006-01 is on Debian as a whole. In my personal opinion, the question boils down to these points: 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? It was a single (absurd and mistaken, IMO) decision on the acceptability of works under a single license. Let's not extend the mistake to other cases or other licenses. Maybe someday the Debian Project will fix this mistake, let's not make it worse than it already is. 2. If it was a clarification, does this mean that anti-DRM clauses like the one in the FDL are compatible with the DFSG? If you take GR-2006-001 as a clarification of our principles, you say, basically, that *any* issue that can be found in the GFDL (besides clauses that allow unmodifiable unremovable parts) does comply with the DFSG. That's a slippery slope (if we accept that restriction, why don't we accept that other one, which is similar?) and would quickly destroy the meaning of the DFSG. Debian should not become another OSI (which approves and certifies almost any license that passes by)! 3. If so, is the anti-DRM clause in the CCPL 3.0 draft similar enough to the FDL's anti-DRM clause for us to consider it compatible with the DFSG? Rather than comparing CC anti-DRM clause with the GFDL one, which is clearly non-free[1], I would like to compare it with the GPLv3draft2 one, which gave me the impression of implicitly allowing parallel distribution. [1] regardless of what the GR states: a GR cannot magically change a third-party license, nor change the DFSG, unless it requires a 3:1 supermajority, which wasn't required by the winning option Here we go. This is the CCv3draft0808060 anti-DRM clause, as quoted by Evan: | You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that | restrict the
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Sat, 2006-12-08 at 23:05 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: Not a good start. :-( Let me take this opportunity to repeat my plea that people who have feelings about this issue join the cc-licenses mailing list and post messages on the topic. http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses I've been trying to convey ideas from Debian, but it really helps if you can state your ideas in your own voice. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the DFSG? It means that any work under any CC 3.0 does not follow the DFSG unless the licensor grants additional permission, IMO. A minimal fix is to change restrict in the TPM ban phrases to have the intent or effect of restricting which allows TPM/non-TPM parallel works and this problem goes away. That phrase has been in CC licences before (CC Scotland 2.5, for example). Why doesn't CC do that? Are any details of the iSummit affiliates meetings recorded? How does CC make decisions? They know how we make decisions and seem to be hoping the debian project backs down when pushed to a general resolution. Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general resolution? Who are CC's members? I know some CC supporters who are sympathetic, but I don't think I've met any with established voting power yet. 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? Neither. It was a single-point compromise interpretation. So, the other two questions asked are irrelevant. [...] I'd love to hear some opinions on the matter, and I'd be happy to collect them and present them to Creative Commons. It's not clear how long the public comments period is, so there is a time factor here. Thank you! I am not allowed to post to cc-licenses at this time. I have discussed other aspects, including some downsides of TPM-bans, at http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/fc-uk-discuss/2006-August/001173.html which is a more public list than cc-, as far as I know. Best wishes, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Fri, 2006-11-08 at 09:34 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: How does CC make decisions? They know how we make decisions and seem to be hoping the debian project backs down when pushed to a general resolution. If they were going to play the heavy with us, why would they bother making all the other changes we asked for? What would be the point? It's pretty clear that the Debian Project is not militantly united against anti-TPM clauses. I'm not sure, if we have a GR on the matter, whether this is backing down or not. Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general resolution? You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though. Who are CC's members? I know some CC supporters who are sympathetic, but I don't think I've met any with established voting power yet. Get those people to post on cc-licenses. 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? Neither. It was a single-point compromise interpretation. So, the other two questions asked are irrelevant. It's not clear to me what that means. Does that mean that the anti-TPM clause in the FDL is compatible with the DFSG, or not? [...] I'd love to hear some opinions on the matter, and I'd be happy to collect them and present them to Creative Commons. It's not clear how long the public comments period is, so there is a time factor here. Thank you! I am not allowed to post to cc-licenses at this time. Why not? I have discussed other aspects, including some downsides of TPM-bans, at http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/fc-uk-discuss/2006-August/001173.html which is a more public list than cc-, as far as I know. So, you're complaining to a third party? What good does that do? Maybe it'd be better to make this more direct. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Evan Prodromou wrote: Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of their license suite: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017 Big question The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this: Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the DFSG? In my personal opinion, the question boils down to these points: 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? IMO, it should be considered as a clarification. In GR 2006-01, there is nothing to imply itself as an exception. 2. If it was a clarification, does this mean that anti-DRM clauses like the one in the FDL are compatible with the DFSG? Rather difficult to answer. Since FDL without unmodified sections is considered compatible with the DFSG, it's reasonable to conclude that anti-DRM clauses, part of FDL, are compatible with the DFSG. However, Choice 2, the winner of GR 2006-01, doesn't mention anti-DRM clauses. It does says we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines., while it also says Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections. IMO, the statement of Choice 2 is not very clear. At least, the statement of Choice 2 is very simple, compared with Choice 1 or Choice 3. Specially, it doesn't mention anything about anti-DRM, while both Choice 1 and Choice 3 give explicit arguments. 3. If so, is the anti-DRM clause in the CCPL 3.0 draft similar enough to the FDL's anti-DRM clause for us to consider it compatible with the DFSG? If we consider FDL's anti-DRM clause compatible with the DFSG, CC's should also be compatible. In fact, FDL goes further than CC 3.0. FDL even restrict your right to *make* a copy on DRM media. My personal opinion is that though we should always respect the DFSG, it's better to explain the DFSG in a looser way. Personally I think anti-DRM in the FDL's way is against DFSG. But if the whole Debian community do agree with me, it may be a disaster. CCPL 3.0 is not compatible, GPL v3.0 may also not be compatible. Then Debian will encounter many difficulties in using a lot of valuable and important, sometimes even essential, works. Explaining the DFSG in a looser way may be considered as a necessary strategy. FSF tends to say that LGPL is a strategy.(It's not a accurate comparison.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this: Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the DFSG? I see no reason to believe that the DFSG forbids such a clause. Do you? The exception is that the CCPL 3.0 has an anti-DRM (or anti-TPM) provision that doesn't allow distribution with copy protection features. The traditional wisdom is that prohibiting use of TPM puts an undue restriction on developers and doesn't let them experiment with TPM-required platforms. (Some console game systems, for example, require TPM for a program to run on the system.) Restricting the systems that a I do not understand well this objection. These systems need software to be digitally signed, and the license does not forbid me to distribute a signature for an executable I compiled as long as I satisfy the other licensing requirements. Even if the work (think about an e-book) had to be encrypted in a way that does not allow the user to use it on an hypotetical compatible but DRM-free system then I believe that parallel distribution (even if not explicitly mentioned) would satisfy the license because it would allow the recipient to exercise the rights granted to them under the License. (This without starting to debate the freeness of DRM protection clauses.) 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? If it were an exception then this would have been explained in the GR itself, I see no reason to believe this. we do not think that... is obviously a clarification to me. 2. If it was a clarification, does this mean that anti-DRM clauses like the one in the FDL are compatible with the DFSG? Yes. 3. If so, is the anti-DRM clause in the CCPL 3.0 draft similar enough to the FDL's anti-DRM clause for us to consider it compatible with the DFSG? Yes, it's even less strict. My personal opinion is that in light of GR 2006-01 this kind of restriction is compatible with the DFSG. (I also personally think that anti-DRM clauses are really bad for Free Content; see http://evan.prodromou.name/Free_content_and_DRM Parallel distribution solves this. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Thu, 2006-10-08 at 11:26 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: GR 2006-01 says, in part, I accidentally quoted a section from an option of the GR that didn't pass. Sorry about that. I don't think the mistake invalidates the discussion, but I wanted to point it out. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of our principles? Consider an analogy. An amusement park ride puts up a sign saying that kids must be 4 feet tall to enter. A little while later, it declares that kids must be allowed in if they're 47 inches, and furthermore that this isn't a change to the 4 foot rule. Is that a clarification or an exception? I'd say that someone who couldn't count obviously meant for it to be a clarification. But clarifying means choosing an interpretation of something ambiguous; 4 feet isn't ambiguous. They may have *meant* to clarify the rule, but they really didn't. The same applies to the GR. People had well-reasoned, detailed, arguments about why the GFDL doesn't meet the DFSG. A GR can tell you to ignore a valid argument, but it can't actually make the valid argument become invalid. It can't, in other words, clarify the rules into saying something they don't say; that isn't what a clarification is. It's an exception which pretends to be a clarification. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
