Work on version 3.01 announced 2007-10-11; now abandoned.
Current suggestions need to be consolidated into a proposal, see http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-November/006226.html for last status heads-up.
This work will probably be folded into work on a new version, possibly version 3.5 with more substantial changes based on feedback from progress on license interoperability with Wikipedia -- possibly version 4.0 in the more distant future -- in any case version 3.01 will never be released.
Relative to draft language posted at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7718
"and You Reproduce" should be "if You Reproduce"
For consistency "national law" should be "local law"
CC internal suggestion
By removing "or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law" from the first sentence, the clause could be read to be purporting to remove any defences applicable to the infringement of the moral right of integrity (reasonableness).
Suggest adding the words "except as permissible under the local law." to the end of the first sentence.
Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Original Author, in those jurisdictions in which the moral right of integrity exists and by operation of local law constrains the freedom to adapt or collect licensed Work, where Licensor is the Original Author of the Work and where the exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this Licence (the right to make Adaptations) could violate the Moral Right of integrity of the Original Author, Licensor agrees to waive or not assert, as appropriate, the Moral Right of integrity, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, as long as You do not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work that would be prejudicial to the Original Author’s honour or reputation, so as to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this Licence but not otherwise.
To bring some clarity, what about adopting the same phrasing methodology we introduced for collective management?
For the avoidance of doubt:
i. In those countries which do not have moral rights, nothing happens.
ii. In those countries where moral rights cannot be waived, nothing happens.
iii. In those countries which have waivable moral rights or where it is possible to not assert them, the licensor waives or does not assert them
See http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-October/006205.html and http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-October/006212.html and http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-October/006213.html
As I've said before - I think the ver. 3.0 Legal Code is fine as it stands. If the purpose of this exercise is to fix the "misunderstanding" in certain circles that moral rights are being enforced by the license - what needs fixing is the /Commons Deed/, which I think gives readers in jurisdictions with moral rights the false impression that moral rights are being enforced.
Proposed scope of change is only Section 4(f).
For the Unported license, where a national flag is displayed for ported licenses, display an image of the world. Currently, no image is displayed on the human-readable summary; on the legal license, a flag shape with diagonal grey bars is displayed. Advantages: Consistency; the connotation that the Unported license is for generic use in any jurisdiction (vs. another possible connotation, that "Unported" means "raw" or "unfinished" in some sense.)
Concerns raised without any suggestion to address.
In countries where "any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) [...] could violate the moral right of integrity of the Original Author", if the Licensor is not the original author, the value of the licence is almost nil (only the reproduction right is effectively licensed). I would be concerned about (a) the lack of either a warranty that moral rights have been cleared or a notice that they haven't, and (b) the potential liability of the Licensor for misleading conduct.
3.01 version makes it possible for the author and the user to agree in writing that the author waives his moral rights. But that was the problem in the first place: the author can't (in some jurisdictions) legally waive his moral rights so he can't 'agree in writing' that he does. That would mean that the 3.01 version is as legally impossible as the 2.5 version (that is, in the jurisdictions where moral rights can't be waived).
"this Section" to the extent they need to -- what is that meant to accomplish?
"this section" is the moral rights section of the license, and what is meant is that the Original Author waives his or her moral rights, as (for instance) expressed in the following sentence
Okay, yes, that was my reading of it -- the author waives the moral rights section of the CC licence.
I think that is a mistake in the section that needs to be corrected. In jurisdictions where there are moral rights, waiving a section of a licence would not be the same as waiving moral rights, even if that section describes the right of integrity.
Should 3.01 also address database rights which are addressed in relevant jurisdiction licenses?
And again, let's stay in 3.0 for the ported licenses and declare that 3.01unported is COMPATIBLE with 3.0 ported. I think this is the easiest way to manage this emerging chaos...
(presumably this means adding a compatibility hook to BY-NC-SA 3.01 Unported same as exists for BY-SA 3.0)
There are three possible CC positions:
(a) the CC licences impose a right of integrity across all jurisdictions (b) the CC licences do not touch moral rights where they cannot be waived and remain silent with respect to all other jurisdictions (where MRs are waivable or need assertion) (c) the CC licences do not touch moral rights where they cannot be waived; do not assert them where they require assertion; and waive them where they may be waived.
Discussions leading to 3.01: