Subject: RE: Creative Commons Attribution
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:14:03 -0800

 Sat, 5 Jun 2004 17:14:03 -0800
The Open Software License and Academic Free License contain the following
attribution provision:

6) Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source Code of any Derivative
Works that You create, all copyright, patent or trademark notices from the
Source Code of the Original Work, as well as any notices of licensing and
any descriptive text identified therein as an "Attribution Notice." You must
cause the Source Code for any Derivative Works that You create to carry a
prominent Attribution Notice reasonably calculated to inform recipients that
You have modified the Original Work. 

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
email: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
www.rosenlaw.com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Prodromou [mailto:evan@wikitravel.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 11:59 AM
> To: license-discuss
> Subject: Re: Creative Commons Attribution
> 
> >>>>> "EP" == Ernest Prabhakar <Prabhaka@apple.com> writes:
> 
>     EP> Well obnoxiousness per se is not part of the OSI criteria,
>     EP> though it will surely get you castigated on this mailing
>     EP> list. :-)
> 
> It would be an interesting exercise to see how obnoxious and difficult
> a license you could make that would still be OSD-compliant.
> 
> I don't find requests for credit to be obnoxious, but I can see how an
> excess of required credits could weigh down a piece that's compiled
> from the work of many, many contributors.
> 
>     EP> There certainly are licenses that require attribution of
>     EP> various kinds that are OSI-approved, like the Artistic License
>     EP> and specifically the "Attribution Assurance License".
> 
>     EP> http://opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php
> 
> That's an excellent example. Thank you for doing my homework for
> me. B-)
> 
>     EP> Can you describe how and if the CC license requirements may
>     EP> differ from this?
> 
> I can't see any significant difference. The text of the Creative
> Commons Attribution license element follows:
> 
>    2. If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
>       publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or
>       Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for
>       the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the
>       medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or
>       pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the
>       title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably
>       practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that
>       Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such
>       URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing
>       information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work,
>       a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work
>       (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or
>       "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such
>       credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided,
>       however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective
>       Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other
>       comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as
>       prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.
> 
> I think the only difference is that a changelog-like note of the
> modifications or use made of the original work is required.
> 
> ~ESP
> 
> --
> Evan Prodromou <evan@wikitravel.org>
> Wikitravel - http://wikitravel.org/en/
> The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3