Evtyushkin Alexander | 20 Apr 12:22 2012
Picon

Possible ambiguity in the v.4

Dear all, 
in some places of the new version there is a text like that:

----------------
[Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:]

2(b)(1)(ii) other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all
other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work
and, for the avoidance of doubt, patent, trademark, privacy, personality and publicity rights shall not
be considered ancillary rights.
-------

This is really deceptive and ambiguous IMHO, as the statement says that:
(1) Licensor waives "other ancilliary rights", and
(2) Licensor retains "all other ancilliary rights".

How can one make difference, where there are simply "other ancilliary rights", and where there are "all
other ancilliary rights"?

The same again goes in the following text:
--------------------
[From Section 2(b) Other Rights]:
(1) To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to reasonably exercise the rights granted to You under
this Public License, Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:
(i) Licensor’s moral rights in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other moral rights
Licensor has in the Licensed Work...
--------------------------
There, again, one should make difference: whether there are Licensor's moral rights or Licensor's
"other" moral rights...

(Continue reading)

Diane Peters | 20 Apr 15:56 2012

Re: Possible ambiguity in the v.4

The language you point to is important to get right, so if we need to tighten or explain it further to avoid ambiguity we welcome suggestions.  One alternative is proposed below, but first we should be clear on the policy choice we're trying to implement in the legal code.  

There are only two places in 4.0d1 where we used that language -- Section 2(b)(1) and Section 2(b)(2).  These sections deal with rights other than copyright and neighboring rights that could restrict the licensee's ability to use the work as otherwise expected.  Those sections address three categories of such rights:  moral rights and rights to collect royalties under a collecting society scheme, both of which are handled in 4.0d1 as they are in v3.0; and ancillary rights, which are new in this first draft of 4.0. [1]  Our intention as a matter of policy -- which we attempt to make clear through use of the phrase "to the extent necessary ....to allow You to exercise the rights granted You under this Public License" -- is for the license to only affect the rights in those three categories that would otherwise prevent a licensee from using a work, and for the licensor to retain all others.  Those rights can be multi-faceted depending on jurisdiction.  Moral rights may include one or more of the right of attribution, the right of integrity and so forth.  Same for ancillary rights, which might include catalogue rights in Nordic countries, rights in scientific and critical editions in Italy, and on and on, again depending on jurisdiction.  So depending on which of those rights might actually be implicated, our intention as a matter of policy is to ensure that the licensee gets the permission she needs to use the work as the license intends without forcing the licensor agree to more than she needs to in order to grant permission to use the work. 

We think this is fair as a matter of policy both for licensees (whom we do not want to put at risk vis-a-vis licensors because licensors may hold still rights that could prevent use of the work as intended despite the license) and for licensors (whom we do not think should be asked to give up more rights than necessary for the work to be used as intended).  Feedback on this policy choice is sought. There has already been some discussion on the treatment of collection of royalties by performance rights organization and moral rights on this mailing list.  E.g., 

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006786.html, thread on NC that evolved into discussion of performance rights organizations, including our rationale for the current approach that continues the policy established in 3.0 (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006853.html)

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006863.html, one of several threads discussing treatment of moral rights

Getting the language right is another matter.  If we can provide more clarity in the legal code then by all means will do so.  We have no desire or intention of being deceptive about how the license works, to the contrary!

One possibility is to exclude the reference to rights retained in those two sections altogether as unnecessary.  Other language already makes it clear that the licensor is waiving (or agreeing not to assert) only those rights necessary to allow the license to operate as intended.  See the lead in language to both sections ("To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to exercise....."), and Section 2(c) (reserving all rights of licensor not otherwise specified). 

Section 2(b)(1) might then read in relevant part (with strikethroughs indicating deletions):

(1) To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to reasonably exercise the rights granted to You under this Public License, Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:
 

(i) Licensor’s moral rights in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other moral rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; and

(ii) other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work and, (for the avoidance of doubt, patent, trademark, privacy, personality and publicity rights shall not be considered ancillary rights).


A similar edit would be made in Section 2(b)(2) (royalties and collecting societies).

We chose on balance in 4.0d1 to include the extra language so there would be no doubt that if not necessary (or possible) to waive, the licensor retains those rights.  But from a strictly legal drafting perspective, that language is very probably not necessary.  If it helps resolve ambiguity while achieving the policy objective, then we ought consider making these changes.  Of course, other suggestions (and input on the policy choice) are very welcome.

Best,
Diane

[1]  Ancillary rights are new in 4.0, and we want to hear feedback on this addition.  See http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 for a brief introduction to the challenge of these other copyright-like rights.


2012/4/20 Evtyushkin Alexander <alex.evtyushkin-GfW4c5v3+WQ@public.gmane.org>
Dear all,
in some places of the new version there is a text like that:

----------------
[Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:]

2(b)(1)(ii) other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work
and, for the avoidance of doubt, patent, trademark, privacy, personality and publicity rights shall not be considered ancillary rights.
-------

This is really deceptive and ambiguous IMHO, as the statement says that:
(1) Licensor waives "other ancilliary rights", and
(2) Licensor retains "all other ancilliary rights".

How can one make difference, where there are simply "other ancilliary rights", and where there are "all other ancilliary rights"?

The same again goes in the following text:
--------------------
[From Section 2(b) Other Rights]:
(1) To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to reasonably exercise the rights granted to You under this Public License, Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:
(i) Licensor’s moral rights in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other moral rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work...
--------------------------
There, again, one should make difference: whether there are Licensor's moral rights or Licensor's "other" moral rights...

Maybe it should be corrected in some way or other, or further elaborated to avoid ambiguity.

Sincerely,
Alex Evtyushkin
Institute of Information Society,
the partner of Creative Commons in Russia

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community



--
Diane M. Peters, General Counsel
Creative Commons
cell: +1 503-803-8338
skype:  peterspdx
email:diane-DXT9u3ndKiT7y3wIJjeDKkB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters

______________________________________

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal
advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal
advice.  Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice. You
need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons tools for your
particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate legal
advice from a licensed attorney.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate 
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Gisle Hannemyr | 20 Apr 17:31 2012
Picon
Picon

Re: Possible ambiguity in the v.4

The present language in sev 2(b)(1) in the draft is painful to
read.

However, I think the motivation behind this mess was something that
Diane Peters write about the ver. 4.0 draft on April 2nd, 2012
( http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 ).  I quote:

   We remain concerned that these "ancillary rights" (the term coined
   for use in the draft) could undermine or interfere with expected
   uses of the licensed work, much as sui generis database rights
   (and their treatment in 3.0 and its ports) have vexed CC
   licensors and licensees in Europe for years.

I think this is backwards.  These so-called "ancillary rights" no more
interfere with or undermine the expected uses of the licensed work
than  copyright, neighbouring rights, or database rights does.  The
problem here is that CC attempts to interfere and undermine local law
in some jurisdictions.   There is no need to do this, and we should
stop doing it altogether.

The obvious solution for CC is to *license* any rights (where
they exist) under the same terms and conditions as copyright,
neighbouring rights and (now, finally!) database rights.

The only thing that has "vexed" CC licensors and licensees in Europe
about database rights was that you could *not* use CC for database
rights (in most ver. 3.0 jurisdiction), which is presumably why they
are explicitly included in ver. 4.0.

By means of example, take the Nordic catalogue rights, which are
among the so-called ancillary rights that Diane Peters wants to
be explicitly waived in the draft 2(b)(1).

Can anyone explain how it undermines or interferes with expected
uses of the licensed work if CC should make it *possible* to stick
a CC BY-SA on a catalogue published in a Nordic country?  It
basically means if that someone creates a derivative catalogue
in a Nordic country, they too have to make the derivative version
available under CC BY-SA, which I think is something the CC
community should want.

Admittedly, there is a lot of copyright-like rights, and they
*are* treated different in various jurisdictions.  There is nothing
the Creative Commons can do about it.  CC just need to understand
that its job is to create licensing tool - *not* to interfere with
local laws about copyright and copyright-like rights.

I can't see what good the current language in Section 2(b)(1) and
Section 2(b)(2) does.

I've already (see the thread "Thoughts on NC") suggested how to
fix Section 2(b)(2).

As for Section 2(b)(1), I think *all of it* can be replaced with the
following sentence.

   Moral Rights, to the extent they exist, are not affected by the
   license.

   Other Neighbouring Rights, to the extent they exist, are under
   this license offered on the same terms as Applicable Copyright.

I am also confused by the use of the term "ancillary rights".
I can assure you that catalogue rights in the Nordic countries
is *not* an "ancillary right", it is a "copyright-like" right
or a "neighbouring right", just like any other sui generis right.
When I see the word "ancillary rights", I think about rights that
are *not* copyright-like, such as merchandising rights.

===========================
On 20.04.2012 15:56, Diane Peters wrote:
> The language you point to is important to get right, so if we need to
> tighten or explain it further to avoid ambiguity we welcome suggestions.
>  One alternative is proposed below, but first we should be clear on the
> policy choice we're trying to implement in the legal code.
> 
> There are only two places in 4.0d1 where we used that language -- Section
> 2(b)(1) and Section 2(b)(2).  These sections deal with rights other than
> copyright and neighboring rights that could restrict the licensee's ability
> to use the work as otherwise expected.  Those sections address three
> categories of such rights:  moral rights and rights to collect royalties
> under a collecting society scheme, both of which are handled in 4.0d1 as
> they are in v3.0; and ancillary rights, which are new in this first draft
> of 4.0. [1]  Our intention as a matter of policy -- which we attempt to
> make clear through use of the phrase "to the extent necessary ....to allow
> You to exercise the rights granted You under this Public License" -- is for
> the license to only affect the rights in those three categories that would
> otherwise prevent a licensee from using a work, and for the licensor to
> retain all others.  Those rights can be multi-faceted depending on
> jurisdiction.  Moral rights may include one or more of the right of
> attribution, the right of integrity and so forth.  Same for ancillary
> rights, which might include catalogue rights in Nordic countries, rights in
> scientific and critical editions in Italy, and on and on, again depending
> on jurisdiction.  So depending on which of those rights might actually be
> implicated, our intention as a matter of policy is to ensure that the
> licensee gets the permission she needs to use the work as the license
> intends without forcing the licensor agree to more than she needs to in
> order to grant permission to use the work.
> 
> We think this is fair as a matter of policy both for licensees (whom we do
> not want to put at risk vis-a-vis licensors because licensors may hold
> still rights that could prevent use of the work as intended despite the
> license) and for licensors (whom we do not think should be asked to give up
> more rights than necessary for the work to be used as intended).  Feedback
> on this policy choice is sought. There has already been some discussion on
> the treatment of collection of royalties by performance rights organization
> and moral rights on this mailing list.  E.g.,
> 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006786.html,
> thread on NC that evolved into discussion of performance rights
> organizations, including our rationale for the current approach that
> continues the policy established in 3.0 (
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006853.html)
> 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006863.html, one
> of several threads discussing treatment of moral rights
> 
> 
> Getting the language right is another matter.  If we can provide more
> clarity in the legal code then by all means will do so.  We have no desire
> or intention of being deceptive about how the license works, to the
> contrary!
> 
> One possibility is to exclude the reference to rights retained in those two
> sections altogether as unnecessary.  Other language already makes it clear
> that the licensor is waiving (or agreeing not to assert) only those rights
> necessary to allow the license to operate as intended.  See the lead in
> language to both sections ("To the extent possible and necessary to allow
> You to exercise....."), and Section 2(c) (reserving all rights of licensor
> not otherwise specified).
> 
> Section 2(b)(1) might then read in relevant part (with strikethroughs
> indicating deletions):
> 
> (1) To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to reasonably
> exercise the rights granted to You under this Public License, Licensor
> waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:
> 
> 
> 
> (i) Licensor’s moral rights in the Licensed Work; *however*, Licensor
> retains all other moral rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; and
> 
> (ii) other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; *however*,
> Licensor retains all other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed
> Work and, (for the avoidance of doubt, patent, trademark, privacy,
> personality and publicity rights shall not be considered ancillary rights).
> 
> A similar edit would be made in Section 2(b)(2) (royalties and collecting
> societies).
> 
> We chose on balance in 4.0d1 to include the extra language so there would
> be no doubt that if not necessary (or possible) to waive, the licensor
> retains those rights.  But from a strictly legal drafting perspective, that
> language is very probably not necessary.  If it helps resolve ambiguity
> while achieving the policy objective, then we ought consider making these
> changes.  Of course, other suggestions (and input on the policy choice) are
> very welcome.
> 
> Best,
> Diane
> 
> [1]  Ancillary rights are new in 4.0, and we want to hear feedback on this
> addition.  See http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 for a brief
> introduction to the challenge of these other copyright-like rights.
> 
> 
> 2012/4/20 Evtyushkin Alexander <alex.evtyushkin@...>
> 
>> Dear all,
>> in some places of the new version there is a text like that:
>>
>> ----------------
>> [Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:]
>>
>> 2(b)(1)(ii) other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work;
>> however, Licensor retains all other ancillary rights Licensor has in the
>> Licensed Work
>> and, for the avoidance of doubt, patent, trademark, privacy, personality
>> and publicity rights shall not be considered ancillary rights.
>> -------
>>
>> This is really deceptive and ambiguous IMHO, as the statement says that:
>> (1) Licensor waives "other ancilliary rights", and
>> (2) Licensor retains "all other ancilliary rights".
>>
>> How can one make difference, where there are simply "other ancilliary
>> rights", and where there are "all other ancilliary rights"?
>>
>> The same again goes in the following text:
>> --------------------
>> [From Section 2(b) Other Rights]:
>> (1) To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to reasonably
>> exercise the rights granted to You under this Public License, Licensor
>> waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:
>> (i) Licensor’s moral rights in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor
>> retains all other moral rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work...
>> --------------------------
>> There, again, one should make difference: whether there are Licensor's
>> moral rights or Licensor's "other" moral rights...
>>
>> Maybe it should be corrected in some way or other, or further elaborated
>> to avoid ambiguity.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Alex Evtyushkin
>> Institute of Information Society,
>> the partner of Creative Commons in Russia
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> List info and archives at
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>>
>> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
>> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
>> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
> 
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate 
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

--

-- 
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
    "Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate 
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Andres Guadamuz | 20 Apr 20:27 2012
Picon

Re: Possible ambiguity in the v.4

Dear Gisle,

Could I make a small point of order? Text like the one cited below is
not really conducive to a civil and productive conversation. Is it
really necessary to use such strong wording to express your dislike of a
written paragraph?

This discussion would be well-served from a more polite exchange.

Best Regards,

Andres

On 20/04/2012 09:31 a.m., Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> The present language in sev 2(b)(1) in the draft is painful to
> read.
>
>
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate 
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Evtyushkin Alexander | 20 Apr 17:43 2012
Picon

Re: Possible ambiguity in the v.4

Diane,
1. I strongly support the intentions that you mention in the first part of your post;
2. I only wish to disambiguate the wording.
I'd suggest that the clauses may read something like that:
-------------
> Section 2(b)(1) might then read in relevant part (with strikethroughs indicating deletions):
> 
> (1) To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to reasonably exercise the rights granted to You
under this Public License, Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:
>  
> (i) Licensor’s moral rights in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all moral rights Licensor
has in the Licensed Work EXCEPT THOSE EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE LICENCING STATEMENT; and
> 
> (ii) other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other
ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed WorkEXCEPT THOSE EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE LICENCING
STATEMENT and, (for the avoidance of doubt, patent, trademark, privacy, personality and publicity
rights shall not be considered ancillary rights).
-------------------
Sincerly,
Alex Evtyushkin,
Institute of Information Society,
the partner of Creative Commons in Russia

20.04.2012, в 17:56, Diane Peters написал(а):

> The language you point to is important to get right, so if we need to tighten or explain it further to avoid
ambiguity we welcome suggestions.  One alternative is proposed below, but first we should be clear on the
policy choice we're trying to implement in the legal code.  
> 
> There are only two places in 4.0d1 where we used that language -- Section 2(b)(1) and Section 2(b)(2). 
These sections deal with rights other than copyright and neighboring rights that could restrict the
licensee's ability to use the work as otherwise expected.  Those sections address three categories of
such rights:  moral rights and rights to collect royalties under a collecting society scheme, both of
which are handled in 4.0d1 as they are in v3.0; and ancillary rights, which are new in this first draft of
4.0. [1]  Our intention as a matter of policy -- which we attempt to make clear through use of the phrase "to
the extent necessary ....to allow You to exercise the rights granted You under this Public License" -- is
for the license to only affect the rights in those three categories that would otherwise prevent a
licensee from using a work, and for the licensor to retain all others.  Those rights can be multi-faceted
depending on jurisdiction.  Moral rights may include one or more of the right of attribution, the right of
integrity and so forth.  Same for ancillary rights, which might include catalogue rights in Nordic
countries, rights in scientific and critical editions in Italy, and on and on, again depending on
jurisdiction.  So depending on which of those rights might actually be implicated, our intention as a
matter of policy is to ensure that the licensee gets the permission she needs to use the work as the license
intends without forcing the licensor agree to more than she needs to in order to grant permission to use the
work. 
> 
> We think this is fair as a matter of policy both for licensees (whom we do not want to put at risk vis-a-vis
licensors because licensors may hold still rights that could prevent use of the work as intended despite
the license) and for licensors (whom we do not think should be asked to give up more rights than necessary
for the work to be used as intended).  Feedback on this policy choice is sought. There has already been some
discussion on the treatment of collection of royalties by performance rights organization and moral
rights on this mailing list.  E.g., 
> 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006786.html, thread on NC that
evolved into discussion of performance rights organizations, including our rationale for the current
approach that continues the policy established in 3.0 (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006853.html)
> 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-April/006863.html, one of several threads
discussing treatment of moral rights
> 
> Getting the language right is another matter.  If we can provide more clarity in the legal code then by all
means will do so.  We have no desire or intention of being deceptive about how the license works, to the contrary!
> 
> One possibility is to exclude the reference to rights retained in those two sections altogether as
unnecessary.  Other language already makes it clear that the licensor is waiving (or agreeing not to
assert) only those rights necessary to allow the license to operate as intended.  See the lead in language
to both sections ("To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to exercise....."), and Section 2(c)
(reserving all rights of licensor not otherwise specified). 
> 
> Section 2(b)(1) might then read in relevant part (with strikethroughs indicating deletions):
> 
> (1) To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to reasonably exercise the rights granted to You
under this Public License, Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:
>  
> (i) Licensor’s moral rights in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other moral rights
Licensor has in the Licensed Work; and
> 
> (ii) other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other
ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work and, (for the avoidance of doubt, patent, trademark,
privacy, personality and publicity rights shall not be considered ancillary rights).
> 
> 
> A similar edit would be made in Section 2(b)(2) (royalties and collecting societies).
> 
> We chose on balance in 4.0d1 to include the extra language so there would be no doubt that if not necessary
(or possible) to waive, the licensor retains those rights.  But from a strictly legal drafting
perspective, that language is very probably not necessary.  If it helps resolve ambiguity while
achieving the policy objective, then we ought consider making these changes.  Of course, other
suggestions (and input on the policy choice) are very welcome.
> 
> Best,
> Diane
> 
> [1]  Ancillary rights are new in 4.0, and we want to hear feedback on this addition.  See
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 for a brief introduction to the challenge of these
other copyright-like rights.
> 
> 
> 2012/4/20 Evtyushkin Alexander <alex.evtyushkin <at> iis.ru>
> Dear all,
> in some places of the new version there is a text like that:
> 
> ----------------
> [Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:]
> 
> 2(b)(1)(ii) other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all
other ancillary rights Licensor has in the Licensed Work
> and, for the avoidance of doubt, patent, trademark, privacy, personality and publicity rights shall not
be considered ancillary rights.
> -------
> 
> This is really deceptive and ambiguous IMHO, as the statement says that:
> (1) Licensor waives "other ancilliary rights", and
> (2) Licensor retains "all other ancilliary rights".
> 
> How can one make difference, where there are simply "other ancilliary rights", and where there are "all
other ancilliary rights"?
> 
> The same again goes in the following text:
> --------------------
> [From Section 2(b) Other Rights]:
> (1) To the extent possible and necessary to allow You to reasonably exercise the rights granted to You
under this Public License, Licensor waives or, where not permissible, agrees not to assert:
> (i) Licensor’s moral rights in the Licensed Work; however, Licensor retains all other moral rights
Licensor has in the Licensed Work...
> --------------------------
> There, again, one should make difference: whether there are Licensor's moral rights or Licensor's
"other" moral rights...
> 
> Maybe it should be corrected in some way or other, or further elaborated to avoid ambiguity.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Alex Evtyushkin
> Institute of Information Society,
> the partner of Creative Commons in Russia
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
> 
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Diane M. Peters, General Counsel
> Creative Commons
> cell: +1 503-803-8338
> skype:  peterspdx
> email:diane <at> creativecommons.org
> http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters
> 
> ______________________________________
> 
> Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal
> advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal
> advice.  Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice. You
> need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons tools for your
> particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate legal
> advice from a licensed attorney.
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
> 
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate 
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate 
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Gmane