4.0/Sandbox

From Creative Commons
Jump to:navigation,search

This page was designed as a gathering place for suggestions from the community. 4.0 has now been published and no new suggestions will be incorporated; this page is maintained as an archive of past discussion.

Process

  1. Review the existing issue pages to see if your new idea would fit on an existing page. If so, feel free to add it yourself.
  2. Please refer to theLegal Code Errata[1]查看您的关注是否在这里得到了解决。
  3. If the issue is not already addressed, please refer to theLicense Versionspage to review issues debated in prior versions and theCC license discuss archives.[2]If you want to re-open a conversation on an issue or proposal debated in a prior versioning effort, please summarize and link to that prior discussion, indicating why the issue ought be revisited.
  4. If your issue is not adequately covered, you can't find a proper home on these pages, or you would prefer that HQ decide where it best fits on the wiki, please add the issue in the relevant section below.

Disclaimer of warranties and related issues

Moved to4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues.

Collecting societies

Treatment in 4.0d3:Unchanged in d3. Following consultation with our affiliates, as well as with the collecting societies themselves, we have decided not to change the treatment of this issue between d2 and d3. In particular, we sought guidance that the simplified language would be treated by the collecting societies as having the same substantive meaning as the language in 3.0. We also examined the issue of Extended Collective Licensing jurisdictions, and whether there were improvements to make that would increase the likelihood of this provision being interpreted as intended by the ECLs; there was no strong case to make any particular alteration, and so the language here was left unchanged.

Treatment in 4.0d2:Unchanged in d2. Please note that based on input from our affiliates in Europe, CC is looking harder at situations involving extended collective licensing arrangements. This review is still underway, and we expect to submit a proposal for consideration to the license discussion list shortly following publication of d2.

Please include a description of the issue(s) with links to relevant references where applicable.

  • 允许收税协会收取版税，即使在其他安排可以豁免的情况下。Specific language proposed with supporting arguments onlicense-discuss.
    • Treatment in 4.0d1:Not addressed because it seems to undermine the permissions being granted by the license if licensor can both encourage free permission via a CC license and voluntarily collect royalties from those same uses simultaneously. But if collecting society can and will still collect even if licensor is not a member, this may need to be addressed in the licenses.

NoDerivs condition

ND has not been nearly as discussed asNC, but it has the same problems of non-freeness and probable over-use. Some of the NC proposals (eg rebranding, dropping, or only keeping one instance of) have ND analogues that ought be separately and thoroughly evaluated.

Other ND issues:

  • Treatment in 4.0d4:See theTreatment of adaptationspage; ND was modified so that the conditions only applies when works are Shared, not to private uses.

(Font) Embedding Issues

This issue comes from the field of font licensing: if you release a font under a CC-SA license, do all users who embed the font in their PDF documents have to put their PDFs under CC-SA as well?

CC的法律总顾问似乎认为他们没有。德国法律顾问似乎相信字体创造者可以使用“字体例外”(从GNU中知道)，第8号。尽管许可证的限制。

I tend to see it differently, as do the vast majority of type designers and font publishers; their postition wrt font embedding is very clear and many of them have updated their license agreements to allow font embedding under restrictive terms (subsetting required etc.).

I'm coming from the font side of this, but I can imagine that there are many more fields, where this "if you modify the work itself, you need to reciprocate, if you just use it as it's supposed to be used without modifications, mere embedding/aggregating do not legally force you to use CC-SA" would be beneficial.

Fair use baseline

"CC 4.0 could promote fair use by guaranteeing fair use internationally. Just as the main terms of the CC license are applicable internationally, instead of simply specifying that the CC license doesn’t interfere with or supersede one’s common law or statutory fair use or fair dealing rights (because, you know, how could it?), the CC licenses could guarantee some uncontentious and shared subset of fair use/fair dealing rights as part of the license."

Above fromhttp://blog.tommorris.org/post/14114334627/creative-commons-4-0-proposal-fair-use-baselineand discussion athttps://plus.google.com/110114902730268262477/posts/PTnqvZHKEBT

Time-based switch to more freedom

Discussed in cc-licenses threadhttp://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/thread.html#6453

自由了?

  • A particular condition (NC) is dropped after time (eg BY-NC-SA work becomes available under BY-SA in a specified year)
    • This being intended as a replacement to current NC-licensing, i.e. CC 4.0 only offer NC licencing with a time-limited NC-condition, thus continuing to support desire for NC, but limit its attractiveness, changing BY-NC to BY or BY-NC-SA to BY-SA after 5, 10 etc. years
  • All conditions dropped after time (eg work under any CC license also becomes available under CC0 in a specified year)

Mechanism?

  • 超出所有CC许可中内置的条件的时间，或相关条件(如NC)适用的特定条件;eg part of using BY-NC-ND 4.0 is that work is available under CC0 after 28 years.
  • Specific time-out duration is up to licensor; support built into license deed, license name and equivalent URLs, eg BY-NC(14)-SA for condition expires 14 years after publication or BY-NC(until-2017)-SA for year condition expires. This supports automatic discovery of originally closed-content licenced works that have become open content in the meantime.
  • No specific support for time-out of conditions built into license, but documented, perhaps encouraged in license chooser, means of stipulating a work's availability with more freedoms after some time duration

In the wild examples:

Related, abandoned mechanisms:

  • Pros:
    • Grants more freedoms to licensees sooner than waiting for expiration of copyright term.
    • Gives more public visibility to the creator community's perception on copyright terms duration
  • Cons:
    • Increases license complexity.
    • CC+ mechanism already exists for licensors who want to grant more permissions beyond standard license terms.
  • Other comments:

Additional terms framework

  • Treatment in 4.0d3:类似于d2，但有标题和修改，以便清晰。我们还删除了关于控制冲突的许可条款的规定，并增加了更多关于许可方可以定制免责声明和责任限制，或者承担肯定保证机制的细节。我们认为，清楚地了解定制CC许可的有限方式可以为许可方和被许可方提供重要的清晰度。虽然许可方可能总是会就许可材料制定单独的协议，但CC希望明确指出，这些合同协议独立于许可，因此不会像许可条件那样遵循作品。
  • Treatment in 4.0d2:Simplified language carried over from 3.0. Importantly, we have retained Section 8(e) from 3.0 and clarified how the CC license operates with other agreements or understandings. CC cannot prevent licensors from reaching additional agreements related to the work, whether through terms of use or otherwise. But we do feel it important to make clearer that those understandings and agreements are separate and independent of the CC license itself, and where those conflict as regards use of the work itself, the terms of the CC license control. Note also that the final CC notice specifies that as a matter of trademark, CC’s logos and trademarks cannot be used in connection with a modified license or those other understandings and agreements.

Occasionally, there is a need to attach additional terms to a licensed work. Aproposalfor dealing the issue was raised on license-discuss.

The GPL dealt with this in v.3 with the following provision:

附加许可是通过排除本许可的一个或多个条件来补充本许可条款的条款。适用于整个程序的附加许可应被视为包含在本许可中，只要它们在适用法律下是有效的。If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.

When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

Essentially, this does three things:

  1. 向许可方/版权持有者(而不是被许可方)提供创建额外许可的正式许可。
  2. Explains when and to what extent the additional permissions apply (either to part of the program, or the whole).
  3. Creates a mechanism for *removing* additional permissions, in case such removal is necessary (primarily for compatibility purposes).
  • Treatment in 4.0d1:CC在第一稿中没有提出提案，但认为这样的条款值得讨论，并为下一份许可证草案提出建议。GPL’s provision may provide a starting point for a proposal.

Termination

Moved to4.0/Termination.

Language Changes

Please aggregate small changes to language used in the first draft here. If you are proposing a change todefined terms或其他实质性的语言，请在wiki的相关主题页中包含该提案，但不要在这里包含它。

请记住，不同的草稿可能会改变语言。第一份草案的讨论重点是高层政策决定。You may want to save small language suggestions until a later draft.

Other issues for 4.0

请包括问题的描述与相关参考链接，如适用。

  • Explicitly support an open data commons addressing the different requirements of:
    • 公共数据提供商(防止数据产品的滥用和误用-组织和个人的信誉和声誉需要保证)参见英国政府开放政府许可证:"ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source;" athttp://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
      • NOTE: CC licenses already contain a non-endorsement provision (Section 4b of CC BY v.3), which serves a similar function. CC licenses also preserve moral rights, which would often prevent someone from misrepresenting the licensed content. Together, these two aspects of CC licenses are designed to achieve the same effect of the provision in the OGL. Because they track other existing laws (trademark and moral rights), they do this without introducing extra ambiguity.
    • This is not a solution but actually is the cause of the problem, due to two main issues: 1. Because moral rights are very different in different countries, a CC licence may give strong protection in one country, but much weaker in another. So the CC licences are in effect quite different. This is critical in the areas of data licencing, where data providers (as in the UK example) require some protection against misuse. If CC provided some such protection as part of the CC framework, then a genuine common international licence is feasible. 2. Because moral rights are tied up in copyright, trademark,and various areas of legislation, it can take an expert lawyer to work out just what "moral rights" protections are provided under CC. This all becomes too hard, so CC licences are discarded as a viable option. To resolve both these issues, a simple and clear moral rights provision needs to be available under CC, even with a proviso/caveat that it may be subject to limitations under local national legislation.
  • Explicitly support open source, with CC licences consistent with GPL & BSD licences.
    • 这在电脑游戏行业中非常重要，因为在这一行业中，音轨、图像和代码都需要拥有一个统一的许可证，这将适用于整个组件组合。See the discussion aboutcompatibilityfor more on this topic.
  • cc授权的作品不能在公共平台上共享。One way to address this issue is to change CC license terms.
    • Many content sharing platforms, and even many of the CC-friendly platforms, require that a user uploading a content will grant a license to use the content for unattributed commercial usage, or give some other licenses without obliging them to give proper credits, not to impose an effective TPM, etc. It means that nobody except for rightholders can upload a CC-licensed work to share with others on those platforms. It also means nobody can share any adaptations of a CC-licensed work on those. Just to cite a few examples both Vimeo[1], and blip.tv[2]had terms of use, last time CCJP members checked, that made sharing of CC-licensed works (RiP! Remix Manifesto with Japanese subtitles) impossible if the uploading user is not the rightsholder. Flickr[3]and some YouTube (JP,UK) ToUs seem to have the same conflict with CC licenses.
    • Although the problem is widespread, it may be difficult to come up with a good language to grant platform owners additional license permissions and waive some of the obligations.
    • NOTE: Relatedly, because CC licenses do not allow sublicensing, anyone other than the rightsholder cannot upload a CC-licensed work to platforms like Facebook. The TOU on Facebook and many other platforms require that the uploader grant a license to the platform for all uploaded content. Other than removing the prohibition against sublicensing in CC licenses (something that would have larger implications), there is probably no way to address this problem in Version 4.0.
  • (Consider allowing sub-licensing, for at least adaptations created under BY-SA, but possibly for a lot wider range of uses.) : moved toTreatment of adaptationpage (by this edit)
  • Consider explicitly introducing an interoperability clause for CC licenses such CC-BY.
    • 目前，如果不仔细检查两个许可(例如CC-BY-US 2.0和CC-BY-JP 2.0许可)，就不清楚它们是否具有完全相同的权限和义务。其中一种许可许可的使用范围可能比另一种更窄，在这种情况下，这两种不同许可下的作品不能在最大程度上兼容。
    • NOTE: As a general rule, the basic permissions are aligned across all ported licenses. This is arguably the single most important factor for interoperability. Nonetheless, the ported licenses do introduce complexity into the license suite, which can make it difficult for licensees to understand their obligations under different licenses.
  • Consider providing clearer and more explicit guidance/ provisions as to licenses a licensee using a licensed work can choose to release the work or its adaptation. (In other words, make it easier for people to answer this frequent question: "I want to use this CC-licensed work in a particular way. But under which license can I release the work?"
    • The CC-BY-SA licenses are clear and explicit which licenses a licensee can choose to release an adaptation, IF the licensee is distributing or publicly performing the adaptation. The licenses are not clearly stated, however, the range of choice when the licensee is handing a copy just to a few people, for example. Absent explicit grant of permissions, we should perhaps assume that it is prohibited to choose a later version of the license or CC Compatible license. Absent explicit requirement, perhaps it is okay to even fully copyright the adaptation.
    • “您不能再授权本作品”是在多个授权中都可以找到的一句话。但这种禁令似乎只存在于有限的使用中——即当被许可人“分发或公开表演”“作品”时。当被许可方在一个小组中共享作品(根据CC许可定义部分，这可能不是“分发”)或处理改编时，就没有这样的限制。这是否意味着被许可方可以再许可呢?我想没有，因为没有明确的授权。但在某些情况下，隐性拨款的存在是否有争议?我不知道这个问题的答案，但这至少让想要阅读和理解许可证的非专业人士感到困惑。
    • But some would say that this issue may be better handled by a FAQ entry than a provision legal code.
    • Treatment in 4.0d3:Incorporated provision specifying how adaptations of BY and BY-NC works may be licensed. Details provided on theTreatment of Adaptations page.
  • Require releasing the source when releasing a finished product under a CC license, similar to requirements in GPL.
    • 在创意作品中，确定什么是“来源”是非常困难的。
    • Discussion atthis threadon license discuss and elsewhere on the4.0 wiki.
  • 考虑一个更清晰的许可证条件标签，特别是关于反tpm条款的地点。
    • Thepublic draft version 1很好地组织了许可条件。但似乎还可以改进。关于技术保护措施的条款目前被置于第3 (a)(3)和(b)(3)条。然而，禁止TPM与许可授予相矛盾，人们不会将其理解为归属要求。最好将反tpm条款分成如下几部分，比如(c)技术保护措施(Technological Protection Measures)。
    • 将反tpm条款作为一个单独的小节处理的另一个理由是，从CC Japan收到的电子邮件查询来看，许多人错误地认为许可契据耗尽了许可条件，而忽略了反tpm条款等附加条件。有一个分段和分段标题将直观地阐明CC-BY-NC-SA不仅仅是关于归属、非商业和共享。
    • Similarly, if there is going to be a clause like "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License." (taken from CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 Unported 4.a.), that could be bundled with the anti-TPM clause in the same subsection (its title could be "restriction of recipients' ability to use Licensed Work," for example).
    • On a related note, the 4.0/Draft 1 currently place this imposition of restriction of recipients' ability to use Licensed Work in Section 6 (c). The title for the section is Miscellaneous. Given the language that "If You fail to comply with anyconditionsof this Public License, this Public License will terminate automatically " (Section 5 (a) emphasis added by me), and that the title for Section 3 is License Conditions, it would perhaps be better to place that part of 6 (c) to Section 3.

Notes

  1. ↑This page contains a list of errors and typos in the licenses. CC will be making changes in 4.0 to correct these problems (assuming the problematic text remains in 4.0).
  2. ↑TK
Retrieved from "https://wiki.www.familygiver.com/index.php?title=4.0/Sandbox&oldid=96583"