[cc-licenses] cc-licenses Digest, Vol 46, Issue 6
Terry Hancock
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Wed Jan 10 13:10:43 EST 2007
Mia Garlick wrote:
> Historically the CC licenses included a warranty (version 1.0) but
> this was removed as part of versioning to Version 2.0 (see http://
> wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions) and so consequently, it
> was considered unfair to expressly exclude direct damages because
> otherwise there would be no remedy for a warranty breach. At the
> time warranties were excluded, it was decided to again not to include
> an express disclaimer of direct damages because of concern that it
> would not be enforceable and/or was unnecessary because warranties
> were now removed.
Okay, to clarify that a bit, am I correct in understanding:
Direct damages (probably?) can't occur because they would only result
from a promise made in the license, which is never made (no warranty).
> Anyone, including Berkeley is free to change the CC licenses - we do
> not assert copyright in the licenses - but if any change is made to
> the license, then it cannot be called a Creative Commons license; see
> our policies page: http://creativecommons.org/policies.
ISTM that advising them to rewrite or write a new license is not such a
good idea. Using an "almost" CC license pretty much defeats the purpose
of using a standardized license in the first place, right?
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list