Mike Linksvayer wrote:
There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
[citation needed]
There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/index.rdf
That sounds more likely than "over 100," although the relevance of the total number is difficult to see, given that the only class of CC-BY- SA licenses we'd be working with is CC-BY-SA 3.x.
In any case, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update and all previous discussion I've seen makes it clear the specific license considered is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Yes.
Everywhere CC BY and BY-SA licenses are currently used (Wikinews and Commons) care has been taken to cite the specific version used. I would be incredibly surprised if the same care was not exercised if BY-SA is adopted as the main content license.
Of course.
See also rms's excellent discussion of the issue at http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-fdl-open-letter/ .
It's hard to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't.
--Mike
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
[citation needed]
There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/index.rdf
That sounds more likely than "over 100," although the relevance of the total number is difficult to see, given that the only class of CC-BY- SA licenses we'd be working with is CC-BY-SA 3.x.
Over 100 might have been a slight exggeration - I guesstimated rather than counting each one. The total number is completely irrelevant though, Mike, other than the fact that it's more than 1. You should spell things out before you have people work on them.
There are over 1 different versions of CC-BY-SA 3.x. (I believe there are over 30 of them too, but I don't care to count them.)
In any case, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update and all
previous discussion I've seen makes it clear the specific license considered is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Yes.
As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported? You know, the one that says "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"?
That'll be a hilarious license to use on the encyclopedia that anyone can mutilate, modify or take derogatory action in relation to.
Everywhere CC BY and BY-SA licenses are currently used (Wikinews and
Commons) care has been taken to cite the specific version used. I would be incredibly surprised if the same care was not exercised if BY-SA is adopted as the main content license.
Of course.
It'd be nice if this were spelled out before removing "this page is still a draft" from the proposal, and in particular, before voting begins.
"All text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License." "By submitting an edit, you agree to release your contribution under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License..." "If you make modifications or additions to the page or work you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License." "You may import content from other sources that is available under the CC-BY-SA license only" What version(s), and what jurisdiction(s)?
It's hard to make the argument that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is somehow weaker
than GFDL when Stallman himself thinks it isn't.
What about the argument that the differences between licenses can't be judged on a one-dimensional scale of weak vs. strong?
2009/1/21 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported? You know, the one that says "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"?
That quote is pulled out of context in a fashion that completely obscures its meaning and intent. When this issue was discussed on commons-l, Catharina Maracke, the head of CCi, provided the following explanation:
Generally speaking, moral rights have to be addressed in the unported license to assure that this license would be enforceable by law in every jurisdiction, whether moral rights are exist or not. The criticism, that the wording of the moral rights section in the unported license could be read as if the licensee has the obligation "....to not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" in every jurisdiction, even if moral rights are do not exist, is not legally correct.
The important phrase "except otherwise permitted by applicable law" refers to every jurisdiction, whether moral rights exist or not. This means, that in a jurisdiction, where moral rights do exist, this whole sentence is dispensable, because the applicable law does not permit anything else, meaning we have to respect moral rights (and in particular the moral right of integrity), meaning the licensee is not allowed to "distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" - whether we like it or not.
In a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the first part of the sentence "or as otherwise permitted by applicable law" explicitly makes an exception to the rest of the sentence "....to not distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation". This exception ensures that in a jurisdiction, where moral rights do not exist, the latter part of the sentence will not be applicable: "except otherwise permitted by applicable law" means "except the respective copyright legislation permits every adaptation of the work", which is (only) the case, if moral rights are do not exist and not included in the respective law. The only problem here is the understanding of the wording "as otherwise permitted by applicable law". The right "to distort, mutilate, modify or take any other derogatory action in relation to the work which would be prejudicial to the original authors honor or reputation" will not be explicitly allowed by applicable copyright law, but you need to know, that it is not prohibited, if moral rights are do not exist.
However, I also see the point, that besides being legally correct, CC licenses should be easily to understand. If people don't use CC licenses, because they don't understand them, we would have failed, even if the licenses are "accurate" in view of the law. We need to find the balance between legally well drafted licenses and a simple language. I agree, that the wording of the moral rights section in the "unported" license could probably have been drafted in a simpler way and less confusing so that everyone understands and it does not have to be discussed and explained in lots of E- mails.
As Catharine wrote then, this is an issue of clarity. I hope that it can be addressed in future revisions, but I don't regard it as a stumbling block for adopting the Unported license. Furthermore, per 4.b.iii., CC-BY-SA is mutually interchangeable with the various jurisdiction-specific licenses.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/21 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
As in CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported? You know, the one that says "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"?
That quote is pulled out of context in a fashion that completely obscures its meaning and intent.
Is that a yes? CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org