Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] cc-licenses Digest, Vol 46, Issue 6

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-licenses Digest, Vol 46, Issue 6
  • Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:10:43 -0600

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page