[cc-licenses] New Generic and ports
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Oct 8 08:07:49 EDT 2006
On Sunday 08 October 2006 05:55 am, Andres Guadamuz wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > Do you mean CC by "movement"? What are the stated goals other than
> > exploring the "Some Rights Reserved" spectrum (without any baseline
> > definition like the Free Software Definition)?
> There is a baseline definition for CC.
Where is it?
> As for the movement's goals,
> check out iCommons:
I just read here: http://icommons.org/about/ and I don't think that is
anything like what is being asked about.
> > Your next paragraph, for instance, suggests that you can read them as
> > translations.
> Where needed, the ported licences act as translations, but they also are
> modified versions of the original American licences in order to
> accommodate to local legal requirements. They can be both ports and
> translation, there is no need to think of them as eihter/or. BTW, I do
> not speak for CC in any shape or form, my opinions are my own.
I think I am getting your take better after a long time.
> As for non-existent ports, then the judge has to look at the text in
> front of him.
> > Does CC believe that the approach that FSF has taken with GPLv3,
> > GFDLv2 and GSFDL is legally flawed?
> Sigh! Again, I do not speak for CC, so CC does not "believe" anything,
> these are my personal opinions. As for my personal opinion, I do indeed
> think that the GPL v2 rests on shaky ground in many jurisdictions,
> something that is being solved by re-drafting efforts in version 3. I
> also believe that despite protestations to the contrary, the GPL is a
> contract in most jurisdictions.
So, if I were a jerk and wrote up my own version of the GPL that basically
said that my license was a license for any jurisdiction that would accept it
as a license and not a contract but that I was unwilling to enter into a
contract with anyone on these or any terms without actual personal
negotiations, and in that case this work was "all rights reserved" what would
the courts in "contract" countries do? Force me into the contract which I
specifically state I am unwilling to enter? (I am trying to understand this
> > Because user-friendly language seems to be a generally good idea
> > unless it is specifically prohibited somewhere.
> I completely agree (but I'm in the UK), but I don't want to export
> drafting practices everywhere.
> > Would following the stringent European rules in the U.S. be wrong?
> It would. In Europe, certain limitations of warranty tend to be unfair
> right away, but American warranties are much broader. I believe that
> licensors would prefer to have a blanket American warranty than a weak
> European one, while consumer would prefer it the other way round. By
> the way, this is not unique to CC licences. IMO, the GPL's warranty
> exclusion clause is unconscionable in Europe if a consumer is involved.
So again, wht if in my personal version of the GPL I said that the consumer
would have to pay me X for the use of my work in countries where law forces
me to give a warranty? I find it odd that I would have to provide a warranty
to someone I am not in a "business" relationship with and am earning no
benefit from. A warranty on something I have never sold to anyone in fact,
much less someone on the other side of the planet.
Now, has this ever actually caused big problems to small players in practice?
Does anyone know?
> As I mentioned, the definition of what constitutes a consumer is very
all the best,
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Join me and write a novel in 30 days! Dont delay!
More information about the cc-licenses