Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

MJ Ray wrote:
> I think they missed what law is "the law" for this. It's easy to do. I 
> am writing about a problem with the copyright licence, so it's copyright 
> law. That doesn't interact much with trademark law. In the UK, the two 
> are even grounded in different acts.

Sorry, I elided a bunch of context.  My point was simply that we weren't 
ignoring feedback.  The quote I included was needlessly confusing.

> Please, fix the CC licence pages to clearly show that the trademark 
> notice is not part of the copyright licences, and announce that fact 
> widely because some users have included the trademark notice as a clause 
> in copyright licences.
>
> This particular change does not require bumping the CC version number 
> IMO, just fixing the presentation so people don't need to read html 
> source before they realise the break.

I agree, though this is not currently possible.  It is very important 
that the legal text not change, and currently the entire legalcode page 
is considered immutable, including purely presentation elements.

At some point in the future I plan for us to publish legalcode.xml or 
similar, and that is what will be immutable.  The (effectively) 
legalcode.html will be rendered by a stylesheet, which we can tweak to 
take care of presentation issues as they crop up.

In the meantime rest assured that the disclaimer is not a part of the 
license.  I'm glad that you pointed out this potentially confusing item, 
but apparently it isn't too confusing -- nobody else has ever mentioned 
it to my knowledge.

Thanks,
Mike

--
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21