[Freedom-misc] is there a creative commons license, that is free culture that fits the below bill:

jason at bluehome.net jason at bluehome.net
Mon Jul 23 15:08:36 CEST 2018


Mozilla is probably not a good example though because their trademark policy  
goes too far by also requiring non-commercial verbatim distribution when it's  
not modified (which conflicts with freedom #2.)

But yes, ignoring Mozilla's bad example, renaming when changing is  
conditionally okay per the Free Software Definition. The condition being "as  
long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper  
you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making  
other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more."

An example could be modifying a GNU/Linux distro. If you were required to  
change the name/logo/branding but if this were somehow spread out over lots  
of different packages that somehow took an inordinate amount of time to  
change and ended up becoming such a huge chore to do that you ended up not  
releasing your changes, then that might be considered "burdensome" and then  
run afoul of the Definition. But that's not necessarily the only way.

Also, I think that the original poster may not be familiar with either  
sections 2.b.2 in CC BY SA 4. 2.b.2 already says that trademarks are  
*already* not included in the license. And so their concern is probably  
solved with that and a new license isn't needed. And also section 3.a.3,  
where the original person can ask to have the attribution removed if want.  
They could do that for any reason but one I can think of is that they don't  
like someone's modified version.

Yet another example that having little fancy icons to represent the license  
mean, I think, that most don't read it.


More information about the Freedom-misc mailing list