Mike Linksvayer ml at creativecommons.org
Tue Jun 8 16:45:16 EDT 2004

Evan Prodromou wrote:
> 1. OSI approval requires a practicing lawyer to submit the license,
>    with commentary, to the OSI board. See here for details:
>       http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval
>    I'm pretty willing to help out with getting an OSI approval, but
>    I'm not willing enough to hire a lawyer to do that. B-) I also
>    think such a submission should probably come from Creative Commons
>    rather than some schmoe like me.

I suspect that getting approval would have to become a "priority" for us 
to bring in the lawyers who drafted the licenses.  I have no crystal 
ball regarding that.  I doubt it would hurt for people on this list to 
take a cut at the analysis suggested in steps 3 and 4 of the approval 

> 2. There may be some fine points that can't be resolved without
>    amending the CC licenses. I realize that the 2.0 licenses were just
>    released, but would minor changes to licenses be possible? Say, a
>    2.1 version, with some clarifications for OSI/DFSG approval?

I suspect it would be a tough sell in the near future.  Hopefully we 
won't have to version again for a very long time.  Still, it would be 
good to have the changes, if any, done in advance.  With 2.0 it seems 
like there was a slow accretion of desired changes, which eventually led 
to the beginning of the versioning process, which eventually led to 

(IANAL and I don't really know anything about the legal side of CC, so 
take all of the above with a bock of salt.)

   Mike Linksvayer

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list