[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too
james at grimmelmann.net
Mon Feb 19 16:17:41 EST 2007
Mia Garlick wrote:
> ok, so i must confess that in my many years of drafting and reviewing
> and negotiating licenses, "including without limitation" has never
> been understood to mean "you may disregard that which is listed here"
> but instead to mean "you must at a minimum have regard to these
> things but may also have regard to things that we cannot foresee
> yet"....it's the whole exhaustive list issue with the language
> intended to show that the list is not exhaustive...
> obviously, the purpose of including these two baseline conditions is
> to give people comfort that CC will consider these two conditions at
> least or as a minimum.
> so let's try to get agreement...i don't like the "at least" language
> but wondered if we could all agree on this: "including, at a minimum,
> because that license.."
> what say you??
I like! Meets with my approval.
I think part of the reason that I'm uncomfortable with the standard
phrase "including without limitation" is the mild ambiguity of the party
to whom it's directed. The license in general is a set of conditions on
the licensee, but that section talks about CC's actions in approving
licenses as compatible.
Thank you for considering and meeting my objections. I hope that you're
right and this issue wouldn't come up even under the original language,
but this proposed change is a nice bit of belt-and-suspenders work.
More information about the cc-licenses