[cc-community] CC needs a default form of attribution?

Mike Linksvayer ml at creativecommons.org
Mon Apr 28 16:42:12 EDT 2008


On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Terry Hancock
<hancock at anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
>  OTOH, *I* would just read the full license. To me, the "deed" is like an
>  advertisement:
>
>  For people choosing how to release their own work, it says what the
>  general intent of the license is, so they can decide whether it's worth
>  reading the whole thing to see if it fits their needs.
>
>  It also serves as a quick-look for anyone using your work, to see
>  whether they are going to be able to do what they want with it. IOW, is
>  it worth their buy-in to review your work, read the license, and
>  understand what it means to them?

I think that's basically right.

>  But anyone who's actually releasing work under a CC license, and anyone
>  actually using work under the license MUST be expected to read the whole
>  thing. I don't really buy the "lawyers-eyes-only" view of the license texts.

I don't view the license itself as for lawyers only, but it is first
and foremost for lawyers and judges. Personally I'd like v4 (may that
be in the distant future) attempt to use much more readable language
for the license texts.

Mike


More information about the cc-community mailing list