[Foundation-l] Decision on Creative Commons 3.0

Mike Linksvayer ml at creativecommons.org
Sun Jun 3 04:06:20 UTC 2007

On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 20:38 -0400, Delirium wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
> > I can see a question about whether to use CC licenses at all, but can't 
> > see any reason to use 2.5 and not 3.0.
> Version 3.0 includes the following language restricting modifications, 
> which is not included in 2.5:
> "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."

The language is not intended to introduce moral rights where none exist
(which is basically only the U.S.) -- "Except ... as may be otherwise
permitted by applicable law" -- e.g., in the U.S. mutilation (or
whatever) is permitted because there is no right of integrity that
prohibits it. In retrospect wording like "In those jurisdictions in
which the right of integrity exists, and except ..." would have made
this more obvious. We will put this in the hopper for 4.0, which
hopefully is a very long way off. However, I do not see how 3.0 can
reasonably be thought to endanger the commons (generic and Wikimedia
Commons in particular) as it does not attempt to add any restriction
beyond what is inherent in each jurisdiction's moral rights or lack
thereof. Note that I work for CC but am not a lawyer and this is not a
legal opinion.



More information about the foundation-l mailing list