Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>]

>>>>> "TAJ" == Todd A Jacobs <tjacobs-tmp-1077654549.186cf9 AT codegnome.org> 
>>>>> writes:

    TAJ> Withouty dignifying your obvious flame-bait, I think you're
    TAJ> missing the point: the license is not a contract, it is a set
    TAJ> of permissions provided to a downstream licensee.

It's not flame-bait. You were trying to use *reductio ad absurdum* to
show that warranties and indemnification have no place in arts
agreements. I was pointing out that they're a fairly standard part of
agreements between creators and publishers.

I am pretty sure you're right that a license for digital works is not
a contract. However, that's beside the point. Creative Commons
licenses are the only agreement between licensor and licensee. Since
licensees include both end users _and_ publishers or redistributors,
it's appropriate to have wording in the licenses to deal with both
kinds of licensee.

Anyways, if you can't even claim that the work you're licensing is
your own, and that you have rights to publish it, you should probably
think twice about releasing it at all -- under Creative Commons, GFDL,
or whatever.

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide