robmyers at mac.com
Wed May 26 02:36:15 EDT 2004
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, Dan Bricklin, and MIT. (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
>  for a great example of this free/fee, as-is/warranty approach.)
> You can find extensive discussion of this issue in previous posts
> on this blog. (See Section 5.)
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
Apart from this and the lack of non-attribution (which I was
considering switching to) the 2.0 licenses are excellent.
More information about the cc-licenses