The new language says "indicate if You have modified the Licensed
Material and if so supply a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material
in unmodified form if reasonably practicable". The 'reasonably
practicable' language should take care of several of the concerns
expressed earlier in the thread.

I personally find this requirement to be no burden whatsoever. When
you do attribution on things you've modified you just use a statement
like "This CC BY licensed material was adapted from materials created
by Author and originally published at
http://someOERsite.org/anotherOER/." Where's the burden? Why would you
want to supply less information?

Maybe I'm missing something.

David

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Cable Green <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Greetings Open Colleagues:
>
> Creative Commons is now in the final stages of drafting version 4.0 of the
> CC
> license suite, and has just released the third and final discussion
> draft, which you can read and learn more about here:
> https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/36713
>
> There are two open issues that we would really appreciate your input
> on: one dealing with attribution, and the other dealing with licensing
> of adaptations of BY and BY-NC works. We've been looking for feedback
> from all of the different communities using CC in order to make sure
> everyone's needs and uses are taken into consideration. Because of
> your experience using CC in OER, we think your perspective will be
> really valuable and hope you can take the time to comment on how these
> parts of the license will affect your work and the communities you
> work with. For some background, here are summaries of the prompts
> we've sent to the license discussion list, along with links to more
> detail.
>
> (1) Attribution:
>
> A new thing in 4.0 is a requirement for licensees to note whether the
> licensed material has been modified at all, whether or not those
> modifications create adapted material. If it has, a reuser must
> include a link to an unmodified copy of the work; this is now the only
> time a reuser must include a link as part of attribution, though we
> think best practices for many types of use would be to include a URI
> even where not strictly required.
>
> This is intended to apply where it would be important for a user of
> the work to know the work was modified, and not for trivial changes.
> As with the other attribution requirements, this marking is only
> required to be "reasonable to the means, medium, and context".
>
> We'd like to hear your feedback on how this works for your community
> of license users. In particular, (1) does this meet the needs of
> reusers who may want to know that the material they are receiving is
> not what the original Licensor released? (2) Does this meet the needs
> of licensors who are worried that users of a work will mistakenly
> attribute modified versions to them?
>
> For those interested, we have some more detailed explanation in the
> posts to our license development list:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-February/007333.html
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-February/007338.html
>
> (2) Licensing of adaptations:
>
> In the current draft, we've clarified the terms for licensing of
> adaptations of material under BY and BY-NC licenses. Adapted material
> must be released under any terms that allow users of the adaptation to
> simultaneously comply with those terms and the original license.
>
> This intentionally leaves a lot of flexibility for licensees: we are
> aware that this flexibility could complicate reuse for downstream
> users, and our recommendations for best practices will reflect that.
> However, it will always be required that users of material under a CC
> license must respect the terms of that license, whether the material
> is used by itself or in an adaptation. (In other words, when you build
> on a CC-BY or BY-NC work and use a different license for your own
> contributions, two licenses apply: the CC license, and whichever
> license you chose.)
>
> This means that a wide variety of licenses are "compatible" with BY
> and BY-NC, and you may even release the adapted material you
> contribute yourself into the public domain. To maximize the likelihood
> that reusers will understand what they must do, however, we will
> recommend that authors of adaptations license their contributions
> under a license that contains the same elements as the CC license they
> are bulding upon.
>
> (Note that this is different in the Share-Alike licenses, BY-SA and
> BY-NC-SA, where you may only release adaptations of SA works under the
> same SA license!)
>
> For a more detailed explanation of license compatibility, you may wish
> to see the wiki page and the mailing list post:
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Treatment_of_adaptations
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-February/007346.html
>
> Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons is on point for receiving and
> processing this feedback, so please be sure to Cc: her (and me) on your
> comments / suggestions:  [log in to unmask]
>
> My sincere thanks,
>
> Cable
>
>
> Cable Green
> Director of Global Learning
> Creative Commons
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Cable Green, PhD
> Director of Global Learning
> Creative Commons
> @cgreen
> http://creativecommons.org/education
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "OER Advocacy Coalition" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [log in to unmask]
> To post to this group, send email to
> [log in to unmask]
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/oer-advocacy-coalition?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>