[cc-licenses] CCau v3.0 public launch
zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Jul 4 17:52:15 EDT 2008
On Tuesday 01 July 2008 21:54:21 Björn Terelius wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > 2008/6/29 Björn Terelius <bjorn.terelius at gmail.com>:
> >> The CC could equally well be considered to agree with me since it seem
> >> both texts have been used.
> > Did they or did they not accept the EFF's free music license being
> > merged with their's?
> Sorry, but I don't understand you.
> This discussion started when Jessica Coates reported that the Unported
> text reads
> "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of
> this License."
> I was trying to point out that the "foundation" of all CC licenses does
> indeed not permit relicensing the work under newer versions. To claim
> that CC as a whole think that the license should contain a
> version-upgrade clause seem a bit premature, don't you think?
> >> IANAL, but if the license allow relicensing under future versions and
> >> a future version does not comply with some implicit intension I would
> >> not hold it for granted that a court would disqualify the later
> >> version. Stricly speaking you have permitted redistribution under
> >> _any_ future version whether or not it comply with the original
> >> intension. In any case, the intension is not an acctually part of the
> >> license text.
> > I'd hate to true and argue that one particularly when you consider the
> > name's of the licenses.
> I can't debate your arguments if you dont bother to write them down.
> Let us instead see if I can explain what I mean differently. If you sign
> an agreement with someone, both parties will be bound by the text in the
> agreement, right? Now, if the title of the agreement does not seem
> reflect the content, the content would still remain legally binding. Of
> course, a court could revoke the agreement for example if one of the
> parts was "tricked" into signing the document, but you would not want to
> sign a document that you know contain some loopholes and rely on the
> court to invalidate the greement if the loopholes are used. Similarly
> here, if the license permit any later version and a later version is so
> flawed that it no longer adhere to the original intention, a court
> *might* invalidate the later license or make some other exception, but I
> don't want to rely on that.
> >> One could just as well argue that any licensor who doesn't care about
> >> his/her own rights to the work place it in the public domain or write
> >> their own messy homebrew license.
> > The former doesn't happen in a useful manner and the latter is
> > unhelpful as far as free content is concerned.
> It can definitely be useful to place thing in the public domain, and it
> is possible to write your own special purpose license.
> I don't mean to encourage peple to write their own licenses, however. I
> meant the text above as an objection to your argument that anyone not
> satisfied with a CC-license allowing later versions could just write
> their own. This argument could equally well be turned the other way:
> anyone not satisfied with a CC-license that does not allow later
> versions could just write their own. The advantage with not having a
> version upgrade clause in the license is that someone who wants it won't
> have to write their own since they can just specify the license as "x.x
> or any later version".
> >> Again, IANAL, but I don't think it is possible to force an exact
> >> version of the license if the license text itself give away the right
> >> to use different licenses.
> > "not withstanding the above text only this version of the licence may
> > be used" wrap that up in legalese and off you go.
> You mean to insert that text into the license?
> In that case, you've modified the license thus causing more incompatible
> licenses, not less.
> If you instead specify "CC v x.x or any later version" you won't have
> to modify the license to control which versions of the license that are
> >> To do that, one would have to restrict the
> >> rights granted by the license in which case it would no longer be a CC
> >> license. Creating a license that look like a CC but isn't would likely
> >> be a trademark infringement (assuming CC is a trademark).
> > So call it a modified creative commons license.
> Sure, but if you modify a CC license I doubt that you could use the
> CC-logo, the wizard, the human readable summary or any of the other
> advantages of using a CC license. You would basically have your own
> home-made license that just happen to resemble CC in most respects.
> > In any case a risk benefit analysis suggests that given the likely
> > minimal risks compared to the benefit of avoiding multiple
> > incompatible licenses (the CC/GFDL/FAL issues are annoying enough)
> > that updatable as standard is the best option for the time being.
> Well, I'll admit that the probability that a future version of the
> license does follow the original intestion is small. On the other hand,
> should a future license be flawed it can have severe consequenses for
> the licensor especially if the licensor is commersial. If they could
> inspect the license and see that the license gives away precisely the
> right they want to give away (for example CC BY-SA-NC -ND) they might
> use CC instead of writing their own. I would consider this a major
> improvement since I actually read most license agreements for products I
> use, so a few standard licenses would be much better that many small.
> I must confess that I completely fail to see your point in most of your
> comments above. Please elaborate.
> A compromise might be to let the the wizard add the "or any later
> version" as dafault, or perhaps do as GPL and write in the license
> agreement that any version may be used unless the version is explicitely
I would like to point out that it seems to me that the ability to use any
later version has a large amount of greater utility in the case of a license
with the SA clause. Not that the dangers you point out are not still there
perhaps, but that the benefits are greater.
I would think that there could possibly be an in license way to lessen the
dangers while still allowing the benefits.
> Just my thoughts
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses