Warranty in next version of CC licenses
jbn at forestfield.org
Mon Jan 26 21:23:58 EST 2004
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Yes, but there's no stipulation that that warranty information must be
> carried with the re-distributed work. It's nice having it all in one
> little package.
Couldn't you add that in your warranty which you add on to the 2.0 license
of your choice?
> I guess I just don't see who benefits from removing the warranty
> clause. It seems self-evident to me that if you are going to *license*
> a work, you should at least have cleared the rights to *publish* that
> work. Why bother having a document outlining the grant of certain
> rights from people who don't have them in the first place?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but I don't think an illegitimate
warranty achieves that end, and someone who hadn't cleared the rights for
distributing the work or a derivative of the work wouldn't be stopped by the
appearance of a warranty clause in the license covering the work they were
about to illicitly share or build upon. In the free software world, the
most popular free software licenses tell you there is no warranty; the
warranty clause says (roughly) you get to keep both parts if it breaks.
More information about the cc-licenses