Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

[Nathan Kinkade <nkinkade AT creativecommons.org>]

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Dr. Peter Troxler
<peter.troxler AT gmx.net> wrote:
> I'd certainly like to disagree with Nathan K on his second point
> On 8 Apr 2010, at 18:56 , Nathan Kinkade wrote:
>
>> 2) I personally would rather a plugin not leverage LicenseChooser.js,
>> but support only the "Unported" licenses.  This should greatly
>> simplify the plugin, making necessary only a single call the CC API to
>> find what the latest version of the Unported licenses are.  Other
>> will/may disagree with me on this, and it is just my personal view on
>> it so it shouldn't be taken as me setting any guidelines on the
>> project.
>
> I understand your point from a complexity and numbers-of-API-calls 
> perspective -- but this is the most irrelevant one.
>
> (1) For users, having access to the ported licenses is imho crucial:  
> copyright legislation is still not really harmonized around the globe, and 
> license porting at least tries to account for that. Bloggers (i.e. content 
> creators and hence licensors) typically act from a local basis.
>
> (2) Jurisdictions put in an awful lot of work and brains to port licences  
> (and this process is not always as smooth as they wish, as far as I can 
> hear, e.g. in working with CC HQ) -- imho it would be a slap in their face 
> of legal teams worldwide to just discard their work because ...err... 
> programming was easier and API load smaller
>
> (3) The term "unported" is an euphemism at best: it means US.  We all know, 
> that the US of A are trying to impose their version of law, order and 
> copyright on everybody on this planet -- ACTA is their most recent and most 
> ignominous plot.  I find that CC should not and must not mimick this 
> behaviour.
>
> just my 2c (well 3c actually)
>
> / Peter

Peter,

It looks like you may have inadvertently replied only to me with the
above, so I'm just looping cc-devel back into the thread.

Nathan