Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: 2.0

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: 2.0
  • Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 07:36:15 +0100

On 26 May 2004, at 01:28, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:

***Warranties? Up to licensors

Unlike the 1.0 licenses, the 2.0 licenses include language that makes
clear that licensors' disclaim warranties of title, merchantibility,
fitness, etc. As readers of this blog know by now, the decision to
drop warranties as a standard feature of the licenses was a source of
much organizational soul-searching and analytical thinking for us.
Ultimately we were swayed by a two key factors: (1) Our peers, most
notably, Karl Lenz[7], Dan Bricklin[8], and MIT[9]. (2) The
realization that licensors could sell warranties to risk-averse,
high-exposure licensees interested in the due diligence paper trial,
thereby creating nice CC business model. (See the Prelinger Archive
[10] for a great example of this free/fee, as-is/warranty approach.)
You can find extensive discussion of this issue[11] in previous posts
on this blog. (See Section 5[12].)

1.0 included such language! (Apart from warranting representation, which was too strong).

For me the argument was not about warranties but about the representation of authority to contribute.

I am disappointed that "warranties" have been confused with representation. This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It will make a few shrill bloggers happy, and blogger *are* one of CC's core markets from what I can see, but it *will* create problems in the future.

Apart from this and the lack of non-attribution (which I was considering switching to) the 2.0 licenses are excellent.

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page