On 7/14/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
Yes. As the chairman of CC I would disagree that 3.0 is non-free. ;-)
It places limits on how the work can be used.
Implementation also tends to go further than the law. For example from the UK: English and welsh version:
subject the Work to any derogatory treatment as defined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
If we look at the relevant section we see:
(4) The right does not apply in relation to the publication in—
(b) an encyclopaedia, dictionary, yearbook or other collective work of reference,
I would also tend to argue that there should have been further exploration into section 87
Additionally by moving beyond core copyright matters you create further problems for example:
"publish, distribute, archive, perform or otherwise disseminate the Work or the Work as incorporated in any Collective Work, to the public in any material form in any media whether now known or hereafter created."
Would appear to have issues with the The Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2006 (mind you anyone managing to trigger that would be impressive short of hyperinflation in the eurozone).