Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 9 Feb 2004, at 21:28, Evan Prodromou wrote:

> > > > > > "ML" == Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org> writes:
>
>     ML> Question: AFAIK none of the major open source licenses contain
>     ML> a CC1.0-like warranty clause.  Is this a problem?
>
> Are you _joking_? Absolutely.

The OGL contains a warranty clause and millions of dollars of products 
have been produced under it. But that's only Open Content, not Open 
Source... :-)

> SCO has been able to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt amongst the
> technical press and IT departments with claims of copyright violations
> in Linux (under the GNU General Public License). They've got a plan to
> extract license fees from Linux users.

Absolutely. See Groklaw for why warranties will be a big issue for Open 
Content in about twenty minutes time.

You can pay by warranting that you have authored what you claim to have 
authored or you can pay by buying third-party insurance. Removing 
rather than modifying 5a is clearly better for the economy if not for 
the commons. :-)

- Rob.