Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Francesco Poli wrote:
>> ] If you distribute, [...] the Work or any Derivative Works or >> ] Collective Works, You must [...] give the Original Author credit >> ] reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying >> ] the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if >> ] supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; in the case of a >> ] Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the >> ] Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original >> ] Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original >> ] Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; >> ] provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or >> ] Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any >> ] other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least >> ] as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. >> >> (it seems that credit must be given with many data --not only with >> the name of the original work copyright holder--) > This is extremely well designed and just fine. :-) The use of the > word "comparable" in the "prominent" clause even prevents the OPL > problem. This clause is so broad and general that it's GPL-compatible > (though the earlier clause isn't...) Well, no. This says you can't put your own name in big, bold letters on the cover while putting the original author's name in a footnote. It also requires that you preserve the original title along with the original author's name. I'd say this is non-free. Not because it also requires preserving the title (that I see no problem with), but because it (and the original author) must be as prominently displayed as the new title/author. > This clause isn't going to be popular, since it contains express > warranties (it's still DFSG-free, of course): > ] By offering the Work for public release under this License, Licensor > ] represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's knowledge > ] after reasonable inquiry: > ] Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the > ] license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the > ] rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to pay > ] any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other > ] payments; The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, > ] publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third > ] party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other > ] tortious injury to any third party. Does this also require that folks who make modifications also so represent & warrant when the (re)distribute? Does that change things? > One more point. > > This last clause is non-free on its face, because it restricts > trademark usage rights which are not otherwise restricted by law: > ]Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the > ]Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark > ]"Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative > ]Commons without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any > ]permitted use will be in compliance with Creative Commons' > ]then-current trademark usage guidelines, as may be published on its > ]website or otherwise made available upon request from time to time. > > But it's probably rendered moot by this line earlier: > ]Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no > ]warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work. > Because Creative Commons is not a party to the license, it can't > insert restrictions on its trademarks into the license. (The > preceding paragraph, however, still ought to be rewritten to say what > it's supposed to mean.) I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Taken literally, the licensor is doing Creative Commons a favor by enforcing their trademark (via copyright) for them. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
