-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Hankins wrote: | 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 Well, if you wrote the majority of the (new) book, and the original author wrote a tiny fragment of it, I wouldn't call those "comparable" authorship credits. Maybe other people would?
This is unsatisfyingly unclear. | 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? I believe it does not require that. It explicitly states elsewhere in the license that all licenses are from the original Licensor, not sublicensed. It's certainly free; it's just not going to be popular among authors! |>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. Right. This is what I was saying: Creative Commons isn't a party to the license, so they can't complain if the licensor ignores that clause and *doesn't* (mis)enforce the Creative Commons trademark via copyright. However, I just realized that the other parties to the license *could* complain, so that makes it a non-free requirement. :-P For instance, the licensor could complain about the behavior of a licensee (although normally he has no right to) with regard to the Creative Commons trademark, and use that as a license cancellation excuse. So, if those clauses are actually part of the license (and they look like it, although I think they weren't supposed to be), it is non-free. :-P I'm sure CC didn't really intend this; I don't know who to write to to tell them "Fix your license!", though. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAZIHBRGZ0aC4lkIIRAq9kAJsFMT4ukdz+ftGhB7mVYMxLQfS9ywCeO2fv nBCz11nK0CQokjFLYxcGWuk= =UZUh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
