cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
- From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
- To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Cc: debian-legal AT lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:45:32 -0700
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-06-09 01:56:18 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <neroden AT twcny.rr.com> wrote:
3) As for the trademark clause, I agree that the trademark requirement
is burdensome.
This isn't supposed to be an actual part of the license, according to the
source code for the web page; [...]
I missed that. I'm not in the habit of reading licence page source codes in the normal run of things. Yes, it's not clear, as a cursory glance at copies of the CC licence suggests. I see some Nathanael Nerode pointed that out on cc-discuss in March... are we talking into a black hole, or do CC react to that list?
Yes, CC does react to feedback on cc-licenses, though none of us read everything. We'll probably roll out a cc-community list soon to cut down the noise on cc-licenses. Anyway, I did notice Nathanel's post <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2004-March/000628.html> and brought it up internally:
On Apr 5, 2004, at 1:11 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:> let it prohibit, the law wins. "the law" includes fair use.
This looks like it might possibly be a legitimate, if minor, bug in
the licenses, or at least the way they are presented. Is it something
we should take the opportunity to fix since we're dragging on 2.0?
doesn't matter. if in fact the statement prohibits things the law doesn't
So in this case we decided to do nothing. In other cases (e.g., maintaining by-sa and by-nc-sa incompatibility) we've followed the overwhelming feedback from cc-licenses (despite strong feedback going the other way from other corners). In still others (e.g., warranties) we got lots of conflicting feedback from this list and other corners and made a change after weighing all sides. The definitive post regarding the process going into 2.0 is at <http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216>.
IANAL nor am I involved in the legal side of CC, but I can assure you that input from the community is read and valued, even if it isn't always apparent from direct on-list responses.
--
Mike Linksvayer
http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21
-
Creative Commons Attribution license element,
Evan Prodromou, 06/08/2004
-
Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element,
MJ Ray, 06/08/2004
-
Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element,
Evan Prodromou, 06/08/2004
- Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element, MJ Ray, 06/08/2004
-
Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element,
Evan Prodromou, 06/08/2004
-
Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element,
MJ Ray, 06/08/2004
- Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element, Josh Triplett, 06/08/2004
-
Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element,
Evan Prodromou, 06/09/2004
- Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element, MJ Ray, 06/09/2004
- Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element, Evan Prodromou, 06/09/2004
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element,
MJ Ray, 06/08/2004
- Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element, Mike Linksvayer, 06/08/2004
- Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element, Rob Myers, 06/09/2004
- Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element, MJ Ray, 06/15/2004
-
Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element,
MJ Ray, 06/08/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.