The Creative Commons 2.0 licenses are out. Matt Haughey, Creative Director at Creative Commons, has already announced that he's upgrading his blog's content to the new licenses. I'm not a lawyer, so take what follows with a grain of salt: Upgrading to a new Creative Commons license appears to violate the terms of the original licenses.
I pointed out two very important aspects of the Creative Commons licenses last year in response to unfortunate confusion regarding the terms. Each is important enough to repeat here:
Creative Commons licenses are inclusive. Additional provisions are irrelevant. From the Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license, section 8e:
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. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.
Creative Commons licenses are perpetual, irrevocable. From the Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license, section 7b:
Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work).
I read no equivocality in those provisions. How do you upgrade a perpetual, irrevocable license? Creators are now violating their own agreements instead of traditional copyright. Progress! I hope Matt's getting a written agreement to the new terms from each of his readers.
I'm not sure I agree with your reading... I briefly used a CC 1.0 license on my weblog and then ditched it, but I don't think I've violated anything in doing so. Nor would I violate anything by switching to a CC 2.0 license. As I see it (and I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt), there are three classes of users to take into account in the "license upgrade" situation:
Those in group (1) continue under the CC 1.0 license in perpetuity unless we renegotiate in writing. Those in group (2) could probably make a case for getting the terms of the CC 1.0 or the CC 2.0. Those in group (3) get the terms of the CC 2.0.
The reason for this is that, while you may not revoke the license of someone who is making use of the content, nothing requires you to keep the offer of those license terms open to all future users. Sure, they could hunt down somebody who got it under the CC 1.0 license, but if they come to you then you can offer it under whatever license you like, regardless of what license you previously offered to others.
As for the inclusivity of the licenses... that is a problem, and is one of the reasons why I dropped the CC license after my brief flirtation with it.
The Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license reads:
So I don't challenge your claims about group two. These are murky waters, though. How can I be sure you didn't create your work before a certain date? Is there a reasonable way to prove it? How do I know which license applies?
If there is something you don't like about a license, don't use it in the first place.
I'm not sure I understand your point about needing to know when the content was created; in a weblog setting, at least, it's usually easy to figure out (since the entries are dated and typically even timestamped), but I wonder what the significance of the creation date is.
As for the other question:
To answer this, ask yourself two questions:
So group (1) is covered by the first question; the CC 1.0 is their license. Groups (2) and (3) are covered in the second question. After further reflection (and staring at that quote you pulled out of the Attribution-ShareAlike license), I don't think group (2) can choose between the licenses; there is no requirement (that I see) that the offer of license is irrevocable, and when the CC 1.0 was offered, group (2) rejected it. So now if they wish to make use of the content they, like group (3), must look to whatever license is currently available. In the case of a license "upgrade" that means they get the CC 2.0.
At least, that's how I see it. I could be wrong, or I could be misreading or missing something in one of the licenses. But that's why I don't use them anymore; as you've aptly demonstrated, using the CC licenses can be a real headache when you start having to think through this stuff.
James, regarding:
I was actually referring to the difficulty the original content creator will have in knowing if derivative works were created before or after the switch to a new license. This could be especially significant if future licenses restrict rights explicitly granted in the current CC licenses.
An unscrupulous creator could reasonably claim to have created the work under the old license, even if he hadn't. As the original creator, I don't know that I'd have much recourse to settle such a dispute.
Then again, I'm not sure any of us expect to enforce our licenses.
OK, now I understand. I don't really know how much I expect to enforce, but I also don't really have any content that I think anyone would want to steal. In that sense, security through obscurity works. If I ever did create something significant, I'd probably pass the copyright on to Creative Commons (if it were written) or the FSF (if it were code), and let them deal with enforcing license terms.
On an unrelated note, why does your comment system allow
<abbr>but not<acronym>? My browser styles either one just fine, but usually people do that the other way around.First of all,
<abbr>and<acronym>are for machines, not end users. It's more important to consider how screen readers will react to an abbreviation -- should they read it as a word or spell it out? -- than how it is displayed in regular browsers. (Although that article also argues that abbreviations shouldn't be styled for browsers, which is just wrong.)Also, nearly all of the topics discussed on this weblog are shortened as initialisms, not acronyms. XHTML and CSS, for example, shouldn't be marked up with
<acronym>because, well, they're not acronyms.Coincidentally, Anne van Kesteren dropped support for
<acronym>in comments on his site earlier today. I'm going to do the opposite. I'm adding support for<acronym>after I post this, but I'm not sure how I feel about it.Right. But the license explicitly grants certain rights to the licensee, which the license claims should be perpetual. The copyright holder is obligated to tolerate usage for which he has explicitly granted permission. This should be obvious, but has caused problems for some in the past.
A return visit to the ShareAlike 1.0 legal code, from section 7b:
The key: "...provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License." In other words, if I grant you the perpetual right to sing my song while standing on my head, then I can't later restrict that right. Philosophically, that's the whole point. I should be able to use a work released under a Creative Commons license without fear that the terms will later change. This philosophy is enforced; the license is clear in saying that new licenses are fine, as long as they don't interfere with the original license. That's all I'm trying to say.
It's more than theoretical. One of the biggest complaints about the old licenses -- what made folks like Jacques Distler stop using them -- was Article 5, which guaranteed to the licensee that the licensor had secured the right to enter into an agreement concerning the work in question. The warranties were dropped in the new licenses. A guarantee given to the licensee in the original licenses was removed from the new licenses.
I trust that the folks at Creative Commons know a lot more about this than me (since I known essentially nothing about law). But I'd love it if someone could explain how this is not the termination of rights previously granted -- and guranteed perpetually -- by the original licenses.