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 12:23:02 +0100

Mike, thanks for your reply. I'm sorry that you don't see this as a problem which CC should try to fix on a published schedule. I'll try to explain why I don't think that position is correct.

On 2004-07-06 02:21:58 +0100 Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org> wrote:

MJ Ray wrote:
[...] If it hadn't been pointed out to me (by neroden IIRC), I would never have known otherwise.
I don't know about that. The disclaimer/trademark text is in a box

That doesn't display in non-colour browsers, especially things like lynx or html2text that people are likely to use to dump the legalcode into a text document. Using only visual styling and HTML source comments is not obvious markup. I think this is probably covered by http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#gl-color

and perhaps more importantly is not a numbered clause [...]

The lead-in text is not a numbered clause either, but seems important to the licence.

Easy solution, if you're worried: get the svnbook people to remove the full legal text from the book, or improve the presenation of same so that it is obvious the disclaimer/trademark thing isn't a part of the license.

There is no benefit to me from lobbying svnbook to switch licences in that way, at this time.

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.
See previous paragraph.

There is not a whelk's chance in a supernova that I am going to be able to track down all distributors of the Skeleton DocBook file. I do not have CC's visibility. Can you try to get CC to clean up after its mistake, please?

Yes, mistake. It seems fairly obvious that the obscure marking of the trademark terms is a (minor) mistake, not a deliberate decision of CC. It seems unreasonable to say that users should fix this for you, especially when the CC-controlled source of the problem remains unfixed. It just wastes user time, stomping these out, if CC won't discourage more appearing.

[...] Surely it's not controversial to produce a 2.1 or 2.0.1, if leaving the version alone is not possible?
We're definitely not going to produce a new version for this, which isn't even a part of the license.

I suggested that it would not need a new version, as the trademark terms aren't even a part of the licence, but you seemed to suggest that isn't possible.

The presentation issue will be fixed, in all honesty, in the fullness of time.

On the one hand, this seems to be dismissed as a trivial bug. On the other hand, this is dismissed as being a non-trivial bug. Why is this? Can we conclude that CC core members don't see fixing this bug in CC's implementation as a worthwhile use of time?

Please cc me on replies.
--
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