Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: additional terms to by-nc-sa

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: additional terms to by-nc-sa
  • Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:23:33 -0700

Alvin Oga wrote:
- Your new license isn't widely understood or trusted. People have to actually read it to be comfortable with it. That imposes a very high cost on licensors.

legal advise usually costs an arm and leg and using poor agreements will
cost even more later in blood battles ( court )
- Your license may not be legally solid. The existing CC licenses have been written by top law firms. (Aside: Someone once observed that if CC counted value in a manner similar to the RIAA, we'd have created many billions of dollars of value -- multiply the market rate of the time donated by very expensive lawyers working pro bono on the licenses by the total number of people using CC licenses...)

finding the "reasonable attorneys" is the trick ..
a tradeoff between they want to do this type of work vs ones that wants
their $400+/hr fees

Um, yeah. Those are both arguments for using a license that has already been written by good attorneys and that you can use for free, e.g., a standard CC license.

Also, FWIW, I understand that James Grimmelmann is working on better explanations of what non-commercial actually means. You can see some posts from him on this list and cc-community, e.g., <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2004-June/000968.html>.

cool, but it's the typical kinko printing copyright question or not
which involves a 3rd party vs the "licensor and user" non-commercial
usage that i want to clarify

I wasn't suggesting that the post referenced above answered any of your questions, just that you can ask questions about non-commercial here and perhaps get answers.

i'm thinking, the other way to add those venue, definition, attorney fee
would be to add it into a "FAQ" but that would NOT be part of the license, which means is it a legally binding agreement ??

I really should have no idea as a non-lawyer, but I don't see how including other terms in a FAQ would be legally binding on someone who accepted a separate license.

with venue, its defined by law, where on can and cannot file suit
and most corp are incorporated in delaware so guess where you will
be heading to answer suits against you

This is also wildly out of my area of expertise, but couldn't you sue a company in a jurisdiction other than the one the company is incorporated in if the company does business in the jurisdiction you want to sue it in?

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page