Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

[Kat Walsh <kat AT creativecommons.org>]

Coming back to this thread to respond to a few hanging points after
splitting off part of the discussion onto the affiliate list. For
those of you who aren't on that list, the question about which parts
of the current page make up part of the legal code was given in more
detail there, in preparation for a more public post about it; we
should have really asked this question separately to begin with.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl> wrote:
> Hi Kat,
>
> We've talked about this issue briefly in London. I am glad to see that what
> you told me then is reflected in the request for comments, I did understand
> you correctly.
>

> Finally I've expected the cc-developers list to be consulted first before
> the affiliates were consulted. I think the members on this list are the more
> tech savvy and have experience in implementing various technologies. This
> seems like a very top-down idea with possible good intention but with a
> general lack of understanding the consequences of a decision like this.

This was actually a 2-part question that should have been entirely
split, into asking about what people consider to be "part of the
license" and the actual implementation of maintaining and displaying
it. You're right that the latter part should have been asked of this
community first--sorry for muddling the issue.

-Kat



--
Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
IM/IRC/@/etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.