[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too
James Grimmelmann
james at grimmelmann.net
Mon Feb 12 21:33:32 EST 2007
Mia Garlick wrote:
> so i always appreciate feedback on how to draft things better,
> especially when we are trying to forge new ground...i guess though,
> that i am not convinced that the issues identified here warrant the
> changes suggested....my sense is that the objection is more a
> stylistic one to the phrase "including without limitation" .... than
> to the actual structure...but maybe i'm wrong...
I think that is right. Given your concerns about timing and
flexibility, I agree that getting compatibility language into the 3.0
versioning, and soon, are important goals. While I disagree that these
conditions should be in the license at all, I would not want my concerns
to block this important change.
As you note, however, I remain very worried about the phrase "including
without limitation." To me the natural reading, in context, was that CC
could approve a license that had the same terms, purpose, and effect,
but was also allowed to approve a license that did not. I hear you to
be saying, though, that intention of that section was to indicate that
CC might impose additional conditions in addition to make sure that the
license remained essentially equivalent.
Have I just been ruined by law school to insist on overly-close
readings, or would the new paragraph express the desired sentiment more
clearly if "including without limitation" were simply dropped? Or
replaced with "at the least"?
These questions are all, as you say, stylistic, but past experience on
this list has shown that handling stylistic details well is good
future-proofing.
James
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list