4.0/Draft 3/Regional calls - Revision history

Kat Walsh: +1 jurisdiction

2013-04-25T22:17:31Z

+1 jurisdiction

Kat Walsh: filling in jurisdictions

2013-04-25T18:28:54Z

filling in jurisdictions

Kat Walsh: filling in some jurisdictions

2013-04-25T17:56:29Z

filling in some jurisdictions

CCID-shinchpearson at 19:00, 16 April 2013

2013-04-16T19:00:12Z

CCID-shinchpearson at 18:56, 16 April 2013

2013-04-16T18:56:30Z

Show changes

CCID-shinchpearson at 18:34, 16 April 2013

2013-04-16T18:34:27Z

CCID-shinchpearson at 18:29, 16 April 2013

2013-04-16T18:29:24Z

Show changes

CCID-shinchpearson at 16:25, 16 April 2013

2013-04-16T16:25:40Z

Show changes

CCID-shinchpearson: /* Other topics */

2013-04-15T22:21:46Z

‎Other topics

CCID-shinchpearson at 22:17, 15 April 2013

2013-04-15T22:17:16Z

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Participating jurisdictions:
-*'''Africa: ''' Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda
+*'''Africa: ''' Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda
 *'''Arab World:''' Egypt, Qatar, Oman, Lebanon
 *'''Asia Pacific: ''' Australia, Hong Kong, Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Participating jurisdictions:
-*'''Africa: ''' Kenya, South Africa
+*'''Africa: ''' Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda
 *'''Arab World:''' Egypt, Qatar, Oman, Lebanon
-*'''Asia Pacific: '''
+*'''Asia Pacific: ''' Australia, Hong Kong, Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam
 *'''Europe + North America: ''' Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Italy, Portugal, UK
-*'''Latin America: '''
+*'''Latin America: ''' Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Venezuela
 {| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Participating jurisdictions:
-*'''Africa: '''
+*'''Africa: ''' Kenya, South Africa
 *'''Arab World:''' Egypt, Qatar, Oman, Lebanon
 *'''Asia Pacific: '''
-*'''Europe: '''
+*'''Europe + North America: ''' Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Italy, Portugal, UK
 *'''Latin America: '''

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 '''This new interpretation provision is designed to provide some predictability for licensors and licensees about how the license operates.  Clarifying within the license has benefits over remaining silent in our judgment.  It adds predictability and in rare instances where courts get involved it reminds them of the general rule of interpretation while at the same time giving flexibility to determine that another rules applies given the particular circumstances of the dispute.  This rule – interpretation of the rights granted is in accordance with the law in effect where the work is used– is the general rule that applies.  It avoids forum shopping and supports other objectives.  Note that this clause is only intended to govern a determination as to infringement.  It leaves to the relevant authority the ability to conclude which law applies to other matters, such as whether a valid contract has been formed, disclaimers and warranties, and similar.''
-''See the discussion prompt [LINK] and [[4.0/Internationalization|wiki page]] for details.''
+''See the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-March/007360.html discussion prompt] and [[4.0/Internationalization|wiki page]] for details.''
 '''''Questions:  Does including this reference help with predictability, or would it be better to remain silent?  Is the general rule drafted adequately?'''''

@@ Line 174: / Line 174: @@
 ==Treatment of sui generis database rights==
-''Including SGDRs in the license will only have an effect in jurisdictions where those rights are enacted. We tried to emphasize this by including qualifying language before every provision about SGDRs -  “where the Licensor has SGDRs that apply to you,”  and “Where licensors have SGDRs and those rights apply to the licensee”.''
+''Including SGDRs in the license will only have an effect in jurisdictions where those rights are enacted. We tried to emphasize this by including qualifying language before every provision about SGDRs - e.g.,  “where the Licensor has SGDRs that apply to you.”''
-'*''The  license grants permission to do things that implicate SGDRs.  The license grant includes using and sharing a substantial portion of  database contents as an example so that licensees have no doubt that permission is granted. ''
+''The treatment is explained in full detail on the [[4.0/Sui_generis_database_rights|Database Rights]] page, but the basics are:''
-*''In the NC licenses, licensees may only do things that implicate SGDRs for NC purposes. (Note that means licensees cannot mine for commercial purposes unless an exception or limitation applies.)''
+'*''The license grants permission to do things that implicate SGDRs. The license grant includes using and sharing a substantial portion of  database contents as an example so that licensees have no doubt that permission is granted. ''
-*''In the ND licenses, can do use the database in a way that implicates SGDRs, except you cannot reuse a substantial  portion of contents in a separate database in which you have SGDRs.''
+*''In the NC licenses, licensees may only do things that implicate SGDRs for NC purposes. (Note that means licensees cannot text mine for commercial purposes unless an exception or limitation applies.)''
 *''Licensees must always attribute when they reuse a substantial portion of contents publicly.''
 *''In the SA licenses, licensees must ShareAlike when they reuse a substantial portion of the contents in a different database in which they themselves have SGDRs and which they share publicly. In those cases, SA only applies to the database structure and not the contents.''
 '''''Questions: Have we done an adequate job of ensuring that licensees will not feel they have to comply with the license (e.g., attribute) when SGDRs do not apply to them? Are there any other remaining concerns about including SGDRs within the license scope?'''''

@@ Line 283: / Line 283: @@
 ''We will not be prohibiting porting.  We will, however, be insisting that any affiliate team requesting that demonstrate a legal need (one that couldn’t have been addressed during stage one of this discussion) or another compelling purpose.  Now is the time to review the license to identify any problems – if you don’t raise those now then that will be factored into our decision whether to allow you to port.''
-<!--====Arab World====-->
+====Arab World====
 ====Asia-Pacific====
 * License applicable without issue in [our jurisdiction], just query on explanation notes for translations.

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 *Concern there might be too many extra bits of information that aren't legally binding attached to the license, before and after.
 *Maybe we can just have 2 or 3 dot points on the deed as an alternative. If they're that important, it's probably important to have them there, for people who don't read the license.
 ==License interpretation==
 Section 7(a).
@@ Line 76: / Line 79: @@
 *Interpretation clause might not be enforceable in a lot of jurisdictions, could be confusing for people
 *Concerned that we are telling people to interpret it as a copyright license, but sometimes it should be looked at for contract formation or other purposes; may be a bit redundant
 ==License grant: scope==
@@ Line 145: / Line 153: @@
 *That approach is fine with me... Perhaps it is something to be mentioned in the deed as well, because it is directed at the licensee. A bit tedious perhaps from a user's perspective but fair I guess.
 *For AV productions where there may not be room for a lot of links/info etc, is it possible to put a link to another place where you specify everything? (HQ: yes, whatever is reasonable)
 ===Asia-Pacific===
 * Trying to get people to note actual changes is impractical, just providing a link to the original work is a much better solution. Might be problems for hardcopy version. (HQ: "reasonable to the medium" caveat to allow for hardcopy versions)
@@ Line 153: / Line 160: @@
 ===Latin America===
 *Visual artists have fears that might be addressed by not having link, this issue comes up a lot
 ==Treatment of sui generis database rights==
 ''Including SGDRs in the license will only have an effect in jurisdictions where those rights are enacted. We tried to emphasize this by including qualifying language before every provision about SGDRs -  “where the Licensor has SGDRs that apply to you,”  and “Where licensors have SGDRs and those rights apply to the licensee”.''
@@ Line 170: / Line 179: @@
 *It is tricky to mark out the edges where CC kicks in
 *The deeper challenge is the intersection between "data" in the database and published "data content" under CC.
-<!--===Arab World===-->
+===Arab World===
 ===Asia-Pacific===
 *Database rights aren't as broad as people think. Legislation defines when it will apply to a certain databases--e.g. large, commercial etc.; lots of technical requirements, so accidental application of the law to all databases outside Europe is unlikely
@@ Line 235: / Line 245: @@
 '''''Questions: Does including this permission over promise that no risk exists for licensees?  How can we educate that additional permission may be needed or that the conduct may be illegal?'''''
-<!--===Arab World===-->
+===Arab World===
 ===Asia-Pacific===
 *Sensible move
@@ Line 258: / Line 269: @@
 *Suggestion: put the license on hold for 30 days to wait until it's been remedied--but I see the point that this might be difficult
 *How can we find out if this is enough to comply with licensing rules in different countries? Might be missing contract formation bits. It's a gut feeling rather than an actual knowledge of particular places it will be a problem.
-<!--===Arab World===-->
+===Arab World===
 ===Asia-Pacific===
 * Our jurisdiction doesn't see this as necessary: we were happy with the 3.0 wording but we understand there are different views on this