[cc-licenses] (no subject)
James Grimmelmann
james at grimmelmann.net
Tue Dec 5 22:59:18 EST 2006
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> <quote who="Terry Hancock" date="Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:19:47PM -0600">
>> I think this is wrong-headed. The safest choice is to leave things as
>> they are. It is always possible to introduce a TPM+PD exception in the
>> future, if it becomes clear that one is needed.
>>
>> OTOH, there is no way to take it back, once it's done.
>>
>> Furthermore, it applies retro-actively to currently licensed works!
>>
>> So there are significant grounds to adopt a conservative attitude.
>
> I think I agree with your prescription but for different reasons.
> While, unlike you, I'm not ready to declare consensus, it seems obvious
> that the issue is highly contested. In that light, it seem both
> inappropriate and unlikely to change from the status quo.
I agree. I would prefer a parallel distribution clause, but given the
present state of the discussion, holding the issue over and leaving the
licenses unchanged for now would be appropriate.
James
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list