"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapgfr> wrote in message 
news:4576ed96$1@news.povray.org...

> news: 4576e360$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Maybe I phrased this a little innaccurately. It seemed to me that the 
>> majority considered that requiring credit to be given (Attribution) was 
>> not practical or necessary for the collection. This seems to rule out the 
>> CC licenses, the least restrictive of which still requires attribution 
>> (although there is some text that introduces the concept of 
>> 'reasonableness' appropriate to the medium).
>
> The conditions in the CC licenses can be waived if necessary, so I don't 
> think the credit is much an issue.

I hadn't noticed before that the CC Attribution Deed does indeed say that 
"Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the 
copyright holder".

However, the Legal Code for the CC Attribution license does state that "No 
term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach 
consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by 
the party to be charged with such waiver or consent." .
It also says "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the 
parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, 
agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here."

If there is a way to explicitly waive the attribution clause of the CC 
Attribution license without having to manage signatures then this could be a 
great way forward.

> I'm really under the impression that too much importance is given to the 
> credit issue anyway. I've worked on scenes that used a lot of foreign 
> material and credit was never a problem. We're talking POV-Ray scenes made 
> by mostly individual artists, not large-scale F/OSS projects involving 
> project teams and hundreds of dependencies.
>

Well, I think the only importance in the issue of credit is that we don't 
want to place onerous and difficult to satisfy requirements on people 
maintaining this collection in the future. So we're looking to find a way of 
'not' mandating stuff, while trying to reduce the risk that anyone can 
interfere with the freedoms that we're giving.

> I can only repeat what I've said in a previous post, which is that for 
> non-programmers (at least for me...) the LGPL and others are completely 
> abstruse and add some unecessary burden to the whole process. As someone 
> who could want to reuse some snippet of code and possibly redistribute it, 
> the CC-By is simple and clear enough. I can't say the same with a license 
> that requires digging in a lengthy document that's using both legal and 
> developer lingo (in a foreign language) to understand what one can and 
> cannot do.
>

I agree. The LGPL terminology is difficult to interpret, particularly within 
our intended context. The Legal Code for the CC Attribution license is also 
quite heavy going, but seems easier to interpret within the more artistic 
context that we need. One of the nice things about CC is that they have the 
Deeds that put things in more straight forward terms.

Looking again at the CC site, there is also a CC LGPL license that I'd never 
noticed before. If I understand correctly, this is the LGPL accompanied by a 
CC human readable Deed. I don't know if this helps at all.

> G.
>

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message