Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: MJ Ray <mjr AT dsl.pipex.com>
  • To: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
  • Cc: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element
  • Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:26:17 +0100

On 2004-07-05 23:35:24 +0100 Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org> wrote:

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

Oh, OK. That's nice to know. As far as some recent posters to this list are concerned, they never see any response to their feedback, so it feels like talking to a brick wall.

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.
[...]
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.

It is very confusing, but I suspect it's probably not been raised because it seemed "obvious" that the entire legalcode page was the licence unless you looked at the source. If it hadn't been pointed out to me (by neroden IIRC), I would never have known otherwise.

I'm not alone. For example, the Subversion Book's copyright licence at http://svnbook.red-bean.com/svnbook/ape.html includes a "CC super-trademark" term in its licence. Thanks to part 7a, our licence terminates if we make non-infringing use of CC's trademark. That hurts.

I've also recently seen it included in the CC copyright licence included in a "Skeleton DocBook" file, which is a DocBook "template" file for authors to use. Forseeably, this bug is spreading to any work which uses that template. This really hurts.

Whether or not CC thinks their over-the-top trademark terms are part of the licence, it seems that some authors do. This is why I think CC should fix it and widely announce the fix. Surely it's not controversial to produce a 2.1 or 2.0.1, if leaving the version alone is not possible?

Please cc me on replies. I am not currently subscribed to cc-licenses.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"To be English is not to be baneful / To be standing by
the flag not feeling shameful / Racist or partial..."
(Morrissey)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page