Difference between revisions of "Talk:MOU"
|Line 37:||Line 37:|
Revision as of 05:55, 2 November 2010
Hi there! The comments of the Chilean team to the new MOU.
1.- Enforcement of the License. According to the clause 1 (a) "The Jurisdiction Licenses shall be consistent with and have the same legal effect as the latest version of the international licenses (currently version 3.0), and be enforceable in the Jurisdiction (the process known as “license adaptation” or “license porting”)." The way it has been drafted suggets an obligation in the results, which, in my opinion any team can granted. Instead it should be drafted as a obligatins in the means, but not in the results.
2.- CC0 and Domestic Law According to the clause 1 (c) "Linguistic Translation of CC0. Affiliate agrees to participate in the linguistic translation of CC0 for the purpose of producing an approved translation of CC0, in adherence with the policies published by CC and made known to Affiliate. The parties will mutually agree on a timetable for producing an approved translation of CC0, together with any other designated leads in the process." As I have explained in the ISP Policy, at least in Chile thre is not legal certainty that CC0 is a legal tool. In fact, there is an express legal provision that bans waive of rights by author. We have made some lobby at the Congress to get a change in the law, but we haven't been successful yet. We cannot implement a legal solution into the domestic level that is illegal, because it would undermine our credibility and the CC's credibility also. Can that clause be omited in our MOU, at least for a while?
3.- Unknown CC Policies. According to the clause I (h) "Further, Affiliate agrees to (...) adhere and publicly promulgate CC positions on matters relating to the public domain, license proliferation, and such other matters as CC makes known to Affiliate, including when responding to public inquiries." May you provide us with a copy of the actual policies of the CC mentioned. I do not know the ones related with "the public domain, license proliferation,... and (... the one related to) responding to public inquiries". Thanks.
4.- Hosting Draft of the CC license. According to the clause II (c) (iii), "Affiliate shall not under any circumstances host or attempt to host any CC Legal Tools (whether in human-readable, lawyer-readable or machine-readable formats, or any other forms or formats whatsoever)." During the process of discussing draft of the license (implementing process), draft of the license were posted in several places, including some of our own website. As a general policy, we do not delete content, because it undermines credibility, particularly if content does not infringe other people's right. Should we deleted those draft wherever they are available? Should we inictiate any legal action against third parties that host those contents within our jurisdiction? We would appreciate more explanation.
5.- Data Protection Infringement. We encourage you to deleted the clause II (d), because the obligation set forth in this about providing personal information infringes the data protection laws of several countries, incuding the European Union members, Chile, Argentina and mexico data protection laws. Also, I don´t think is good policy show this careless with other jurisdictions law. Particularly in a mattter that is not sensible, but extremely sensitive in countries other than the U.S.
6.- Hosting content. According to the clause III (a) "Hosting. CC is solely responsible for hosting any and all CC Legal Tools in human-readable, lawyer-readable and machine-readable formats, including without limitation the Jurisdiction Licenses, the international licenses (including translations thereof), and CC0 (and translations thereof)." I repeat the same concerns that I have expressed previously in the second comment. CC0 is not clearly legal in our country, and we do not having full knowledge of other "international license". Can you let's know the latter ones? Can we drop the CC0 for a while (while it became clearly legal in our country)?
Those are our public concerns about the new MOU. Thaks for answering to them. best, A.
Alberto Cerda Silva
Responses to some of Alberto's comments: 2. To clarify, CC0 does not get ported. There will be a single translation of it into each language, i.e. one Spanish translation. If a jurisdiction team does not wish to participate in the translation of CC0, that is fine. That jurisdiction may request to have the CC0 clause removed from its MOU.
3. Other policies - This comment made an excellent point. Creative Commons will modify the provision to make it clear that these policies are ones of which Creative Commons has notified the Affiliates.
4. License drafts hosted on non-CC HQ platforms - It would be great if you could take down the old license drafts, but if you cannot, you can keep them up. Please ensure that they are clearly marked as drafts and that there is a link to the actual finalized licenses, to avoid confusion.
6. Hosting of licenses and legal tools - This provision does not change anything from current obligations. It says that all licenses and legal tools should only be hosted on CC's website. There is no obligation here for the Affiliate team to do, host or support anything. --Aurelia Schultz 05:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
To edit, click on "Edit" at the top of the page, below the green header.
This is how to leave a comment. You may respond to or comment on other people's comments, but please do not delete other's comments. --Michelle Thorne 14:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)