Tarmo Toikkanen | 24 Jul 23:10 2014
Picon

Re: 4.0 translation worksheet discrepancies

Thanks for the clarifications, Kat!

While you're fixing the worksheet, and adding sentences that are not 
strictly license text, might I suggest you also add the strings that 
need to be inserted to the license texts when making the 6 variants? Now 
that they are not in the worksheet, we had to separately ask the 
translators to do those. It would be simpler to have everything in the 
worksheet.

Specifically, these are the missing strings:

BY and BY-NC:
- Insert 3(a)(4): “If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the 
Adapter's License
You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying
with this Public License.”

BY-ND and BY-NC-ND:
- Insert “For the avoidance of doubt, You do not have permission under 
this Public
License to Share Adapted Material.” at the end of Section 3(a)(1)

BY-ND:
- Change Section 2(a)(1)(B) to “produce and reproduce, but not Share, 
Adapted
Material”
- Insert “, provided You do not Share Adapted Material” to Section 4(a)

BY-NC-ND:
- Change Section 2(a)(1)(B) to “produce and reproduce, but not Share, 
(Continue reading)

Sarah Pearson | 24 Jul 23:52 2014

input requested: FAL/BY-SA compatibility - attribution

As mentioned on this list, the Free Art License is currently under consideration for compatibility with CC BY-SA 4.0. We are seeking input from the community via several discussion prompts. This is the first and will address attribution.

If the FAL is deemed a compatible license, it means a reuser will be able to take a BY-SA work, adapt it, and then apply the FAL. Someone who receives the adapted material downstream must attribute the adapter and the original author, but they may attribute both authors in the manner dictated by the FAL.

The two licenses have slightly different attribution and marking requirements. The FAL has fewer total requirements than BY-SA, but it does have some requirements that are not included in BY-SA.

Specifically, the FAL requires:
  1. name of author(s),
  2. attach license to work or indicate where license can be found
  3. info on where to access the originals

(Sec 2.2)

It also requires that you indicate if you modified the work and note what type of modifications were made. (Sec 2.3)

Do you feel the FAL requirements will meet CC licensor expectations as to how they will be attributed by downstream users? Any and all input welcome.

best,
CC Legal
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Tarmo Toikkanen | 21 Jul 23:46 2014
Picon

4.0 translation worksheet discrepancies

On creating the xhtml version of the 4.0 suite translation, I've 
stumbled onto the following discrepancies between the html text 
currently in the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 legal code html file and the 
translation worksheet:

1. Section "Considerations for the public", last sentence is "More 
considerations for the public" in the legal code, while in the worksheet 
the sentence is "More considerations for licensees". Which is correct?

2. The worksheet is missing the H1 title "Creative Commons Legal Code". 
Should it be translated?

3. The worksheet is missing the H3 title "Creative Commons 
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License" 
(although in most cases it's probably easy to build from the license 
components).

4. The worksheet is missing the "Additional languages available" bit, 
which is in html <!-- comments currently. Should it be translated or 
not? If yes, can we also fix the html invalidity problem, as the 
commented section contains a <p> that is not closed? The section also 
contains an "<a name" attribute, which is currently obsolete. What is 
your advise?

5. "Back to Commons Deed" is in the html, but not in the worksheet. 
Should it be translated?

--

-- 
Tarmo Toikkanen
researcher, tarmo.toikkanen@...
Learning Environments research group, http://legroup.aalto.fi
Creative Commons Finland, http://creativecommons.fi
Aalto University, http://aalto.fi

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Sarah Pearson | 22 Jul 15:05 2014

first compatibility candidate

Together with Copyleft Attitude, Creative Commons is happy to formally propose the Free Art License 1.3 as the first candidate for consideration under the ShareAlike compatibility process.

Per the compatibility process, we have published a wiki page dedicated to the FAL proposal. The page includes an initial comparison of the FAL and BY-SA 4.0.

Over the next several weeks, we will be seeking public input on this proposal. Look for specific discussion prompts on this list, but in the meantime, please feel free to chime in with general comments and reactions.

best,
CC Legal

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Tarmo Toikkanen | 21 Jul 07:01 2014
Picon

Minor typo in 4.0 suite translation instructions

Hi! We in CC Finland are proceeding along 4.0 translation.

In this pdf, which details how to make the 6 variants, there is a small 
discrepancy:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/d/d1/Building_the_4.0_Suite.pdf

BY-ND: Insert “, provided You do not Share Adapted Material” to Section 4(a)
BY-NC-ND: Insert “and provided You do not Share Adapted Material” to 
Section 4(a)

Most likely these inserts should be identical for BY-ND and BY-NC-ND, 
but they have a one word/character difference. Best to fix, unless 
there's really a semantic difference between these two (which I doubt).

--

-- 
Tarmo Toikkanen
researcher, tarmo.toikkanen@...
Learning Environments research group, http://legroup.aalto.fi
Creative Commons Finland, http://creativecommons.fi
Aalto University, http://aalto.fi

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Kat Walsh | 28 Jun 00:33 2014

CC0 French translation published

CC0 French is now published:

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.fr

https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/42967

Congratulations to all of those who worked on this, particularly CC France!

Cheers,
Kat

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Kat Walsh | 4 Jun 21:34 2014

Errata page reorganization

The errata page has been reorganized so that information is easier to find:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legalcode_errata

If you know of any other errors in CC legal tools, please let us know!

Cheers,
Kat

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Kat Walsh | 4 Jun 19:10 2014

ShareAlike compatibility process and criteria published

This is now published:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ShareAlike_compatibility_process_and_criteria

Along with it, we have also updated the Compatible Licenses page to
reflect what is compatible with each license, and what may change in
the future:

https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses

Since the criteria and process are published, we are now open to
proposals. However, we already have two planned for the near future
which we will propose: the Free Art License and the GPL. (This is
probably not a surprise to most people following the list!) We have
been corresponding with the stewards of those licenses to let them
know our intentions, and will put those forward in the near future.
These are the most obvious candidates that we've identified, and we
hope to test our process with these as we put them forward for BY-SA
compatibility.

Cheers,
Kat

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Kat Walsh | 28 May 20:42 2014

Re: ShareAlike compatibility process and criteria: update

We'll be closing this comment period at the end of the day today
(11:59 Pacific Time), so if you have any last minute comments, please
make them soon.

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Kat Walsh <kat <at> creativecommons.org> wrote:
> We are most of the way through our consultation period for the process
> and criteria, which we will be wrapping up on the 28th, and publishing
> in early June.
>
> Based on the feedback we have received so far, here are the things we
> are planning:
>
> 1. We are not going to be specific about the attribution requirements
> of a candidate license: we will evaluate these in a public process on
> a case-by-case basis. (We have one more request to raise in its
> thread.)
>
> 2. We will not require that candidate licenses address ETMs in the
> same way that the CC licenses do. A candidate license should address
> this somehow, but this may be handled differently, or may even be
> implied by other terms in the license rather than explicit.
>
> 3. We are planning to allow one-way compatibility. The strongest
> argument is that many people in our community want the ability to
> remix with GPL works, which is otherwise legally uncertain. Barring
> very strong arguments against or widespread opposition, this will be
> permitted. However, because of the considerable trade-offs involved
> (as identified by many of you in the relevant thread), there will be a
> high barrier to meet for one-way compatible licenses. These will be
> considered where there is high demand or some other specific need, but
> otherwise CC may reject these candidates.
>
> 4. Though there is broad agreement about the undesirability of license
> proliferation, positions are mixed on how to consider vanity licenses.
> We will evaluate these requests on a case-by-case basis, but will
> consider it within our discretion to reject a compatibility candidate
> on this basis alone.
>
> We are also adding a statement that CC may change the process and
> criteria at any time, provided that we also have a public consultation
> before any changes are made; we may find additional areas for
> refinement after the first few candidate licenses are considered, and
> want to allow for the possibility of addressing these.
>
> The changes we've made to the draft document are visible here:
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=ShareAlike_compatibility_process_and_criteria&diff=97751&oldid=97633
>
> This draft is still open until May 28, and we welcome further comment.
>
> Alongside the SA compatibility process and criteria, we will also
> publish the revised version of the Compatible Licenses page, which is
> specified in the license text as where compatible licenses must be
> listed. A draft is up on the wiki, and we welcome feedback on it:
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Compatible_licenses_page_draft
>
> ----
>
> Here is a summary of the feedback received on the open questions:
>
> Attribution:
>
> There should be adequate room for differences in attribution
> requirements, as requiring exact alignment would present too high a
> bar. Candidate licenses should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
>
> ETMs:
>
> This restriction should not need to be present in a candidate license
> in the same form as in the CC license, especially because we don't
> have evidence of its effectiveness here. Candidate licenses should
> have an approach, but not necessarily the same one--for example,
> allowing parallel distribution.
>
> One-way compatibility:
>
> There have been many expressions that this should be possible, but
> also many expressions of concern about the tradeoffs involved. One
> proposal was that this should be permitted, but only with a high
> barrier to consideration: specific need, low impact, high demand, or
> other such considerations.
>
> In particular, there is strong demand for compatibility with the GPL,
> which is otherwise legally uncertain, and one commenter mentioned
> having to use GPL for content which was otherwise better suited to
> BY-SA if there was any possibility they would want to remix with GPL
> works in the future.
>
> The example of GFDL to BY-SA compatibility was given as one where
> one-way compatibility had happened with general agreement; the time
> limit created special circumstances but the example could generalize.
> Another raised the same example as evidence that this makes the
> license irrelevant, as GFDL has faded out. The examples of CC BY and
> BY-NC, which are widely one-way compatible, were raised as
> counterexamples.
>
> Perhaps the largest concern is that one-way compatibility may further
> fragment the commons. Dual-licensing was proposed as a solution, but
> this was argued to create fragmentation with more undesirable effects,
> as a remixer could choose the more lax of the two licenses to comply
> with (whereas under one-way compatibility, the remixed work would be
> under the less lax of the two.) However, this concern presents a
> strong argument for limiting the allowability to cases where
> compatibility solves an existing fragmentation problem.
>
> One comment raised the possibility of simply designating the GPL as
> the next version of BY-SA; because many of its requirements aren’t
> suited to the uses of many of the communities using BY-SA, we will not
> be pursuing this option.
>
> Vanity licenses:
>
> There is broad agreement that license proliferation, especially
> proliferation of vanity licenses, is undesirable, but not broad
> agreement on what to do about it: fighting them may be worthwhile, but
> may be counterproductive. A possible solution proposed was to place a
> blanket ban; another was to consider them on a case-by-case basis.
>
> -Kat
>
>
> --
> Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
> IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
> Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
> California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
> CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
> please consult your attorney.

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Kat Walsh | 28 May 20:41 2014

Re: ShareAlike compatibility process and criteria: update

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Rob Myers <rob@...> wrote:
> On 21/05/14 11:02 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
>>
>> ETMs:
>>
>> This restriction should not need to be present in a candidate license
>> in the same form as in the CC license, especially because we don't
>> have evidence of its effectiveness here. Candidate licenses should
>> have an approach, but not necessarily the same one--for example,
>> allowing parallel distribution.
>
> SA has taken two different approaches to ETMs, and there certainly may
> be other interesting and useful approaches. Some of them may be
> improvements over existing approaches and may even be worth adopting for
> future versions of BY-SA. So the requirement that other licenses should
> take *exactly* the same approach to ETMs as SA would not be prudent.
>
> But responses to ETMs should be effective, and parallel distribution is
> not. It should not be accepted in compatible licenses.
>
> Allowing ETMs to be applied to an instance of a ShareAlike work removes
> the permissions granted by the license *for that instance of the work*.
> When all you have is that instance of the work, the license has been
> effectively circumvented for you. And you won't be the only one.
>
> Dual distribution is therefore undesirable both practically (it is more
> efficient to have a single usable version of a work distributed) and
> politically (the existence of a pool of work that refuses or defeats
> ETMs both demonstrates opposition to them and provides a reason for them
> not to be imposed universally).
>
> Please explicitly exclude parallel distribution as an acceptable
> response to ETMs in compatible licenses.

We've decided not to take this suggestion. In the current draft, we
will be leaving open the possibility for ETMs to be addressed in some
way other than the CC licenses handle it, so long as they are
addressed in some fashion.

A method of addressing ETMs that does not seem strong enough may be a
reason to argue against a particular license when it comes up for
consideration, but we have currently decided not to explicitly exclude
parallel distribution as a possibility.

-Kat

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Kat Walsh | 19 May 22:10 2014

Administrivia: mailing list issues; should be resolved now.

Mailing lists hosted on ibiblio--including this one--have been
suffering some issues recently, meaning that some messages ended up
stuck in moderation and others may not have made it to the list at all
(also, some duplicate messages may have made it through).

All of the held messages should now be sent though to the list, but if
you sent something (that was not obvious spam) that did not make it to
the list, please resend it.

Cheers,
Kat

--

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/ <at> /etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
California Registered In-House Counsel #801759
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community


Gmane