www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject New versions of CC licenses
Date Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:38:45 GMT
Creative Commons has just published version 4 of their licenses, including
CC-BY:

 

                http://creativecommons.org/Version4

 

The attribution provisions of the earlier version of CC-BY have been
criticized on this list because they go beyond the attribution requirements
of (e.g.,) the Apache License. They allow the original author to demand the
/removal/ of attribution notices from derivative works with which she
disagrees. 

 

I believe those are common sense and reasonable provisions. I wish we had
such provisions in the Apache License. I wish we listed CC-BY as an
acceptable license for inclusion in Apache works.

 

/Larry

 

 

*************** From the Creative Commons FAQ on the version 4 licenses:

 

What can I do if I offer my material under a Creative Commons license and I
do not like the way someone uses it?

 

As long as users abide by license terms and conditions, licensors cannot
control how the material is used. However, CC licenses do provide several
mechanisms that allow licensors to choose not to be associated with their
material or to uses of their material with which they disagree.

First, all CC licenses
<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Faq#Do_I_need_to_be_aware_of_anything_else_
when_providing_attribution.3F> prohibit using the attribution requirement to
suggest that the licensor endorses or supports a particular use. Second,
licensors may waive the attribution requirement, choosing not to be
identified as the licensor, if they wish. Third, if the licensor does not
like how the material has been modified or used, CC licenses require that
the licensee
<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Licensors_may_request_remo
val_of_attribution> remove the attribution information upon request. (In 3.0
and earlier, this is only a requirement for adaptations and collections; in
4.0, this also applies to the unmodified work.) Finally, anyone modifying
licensed material must
<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Modifications_and_adaptati
ons_must_be_indicated> indicate that the original has been modified. This
ensures that changes made to the original material--whether or not the
licensor approves of them--are not attributed back to the licensor.

 

 

*************** From the Creative Commons announcement of Version 4
licenses:

 

Common-sense attribution

 

Version 4.0 includes a slight change to
<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_properl
y_attribute_material_offered_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.3F>
attribution requirements, designed to better reflect accepted practices. The
licenses explicitly permit licensees to satisfy the attribution requirement
with a link to a separate page for attribution information. This was already
common practice on the internet and possible under earlier versions of the
licenses, and Version 4.0 alleviates any uncertainty about its use.

 

Enabling more anonymity, when desired

 

Version 3.0 included a provision allowing a licensor to
<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Faq#What_can_I_do_if_I_offer_my_work_under_
a_Creative_Commons_license_and_I_do_not_like_the_way_someone_uses_my_work.3F
> request that a licensee remove the attribution from an adaptation, if she
did not want her name associated with it. Version 4.0 expands that provision
to apply not only to adaptations but also to verbatim reproductions of a
work. Licenses now account specifically for situations where licensors wish
to disassociate themselves from uses of their works they object to, even if
their work hasn't been modified or published in a collection with other
works.

 

 


Mime
View raw message