On 7/13/07, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
Yes. As the chairman of CC I would disagree that 3.0 is non-free. ;-)
It does seem very clear from the text that it requires what we're referring to as moral rights. I am not a lawyer but even the unported version,
"Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."
Sounds a little weird to me. I actually had my blog using creative commons since 1.0 but took it off because I don't want to limit people like this. I know some people say it's not real or it's not limiting but I haven't heard a good explanation. Why isn't it? Is "may be otherwise permitted by applicable law" a magic phrase that says some people can disregard the whole sentence? Geni isn't alone in this, it's obviously the consensus view on commons right now, but even outside wikipedia it is an issue that I think the creative commons should help clear up for us all, please! :D
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]