www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?
Date Tue, 16 Jun 2015 23:23:39 GMT
I am puzzled.  "Creative Commons Public License" and "CCPL" do not seem to be names of any
Creative Commons licenses, and the reproduced notice (below in the original message) is insufficient
for a recipient of the file to find the actual license that governs the work.

If this is thought to be CC-SA, it should be identified as such.

It appears that too much creativity is being applied.

 - Dennis

DIGGING DEEPER

In the text of Creative Commons licenses, the term Public License is used, after definition
with respect to a particular one (just as there are typical definitions for "You" "Creative
Commons" and so on in the context of an individual license statement).  The term Creative
Commons Public Licenses (note the plural) is used to refer to the collection of Creative Commons
licenses.  The singular is not the name of any of the licenses, however, and I have not found
CCPL ever used.  

The pages for selecting a Creative Commons license to use provides a sample notice statement
that is very simple.  It consists of the statement

  "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons <particular license name>."  The particular
license name is usually a link with visible text being the name and the target being the license
deed page.  This could be handled in plaintext, for example, simply by saying, for example,


   /*                This work is licensed under a 
    * Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, 
    *        <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/>
    */

Whether such pages can appear as part of a release source is a different question that has
been answered already, as I recall.

Note that the above remedy does not say anything about the so-called CCPL license.  I have
no idea what that is about.  If there are files with no notice at all, only the copyright
holder (or their authorized agent) can say what license pertains, if any, and what notice
is to be made.


-----Original Message-----
From: P. Ottlinger [mailto:pottlinger@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 13:20
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: pascalschumacher@gmx.net
Subject: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?

Hi everyone,

thanks for your feedback so far - to me it seems that the original
question is not answered yet.

Can anyone help with that?

Am 11.06.2015 um 21:25 schrieb P. Ottlinger:
> What is a valid file header we need to scan for to properly mark it as
> CC-licensed during RAT runs?
> Is it
> '
> THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS
> CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS
> PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE
> WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS
> PROHIBITED.
> 
> BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND
> AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS
> YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF
> SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
> '
> ?

* Is there a valid license header for CreativeCommons-licenses?
* How does it look like?

Thanks
Phil



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message