Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 06 April 2005 08:28 am, Rob Myers wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 06, 2005, at 01:23PM, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
> wrote>
>
> >Would it restrict what is trying to be restricted on the page in question?
> >
> >http://www.incompetech.com/music/collections/royalty-free/rock.html
> >
> >"This music may not be resold as part of a royalty-free music collection."
> >
> >I don't understand why that would be restricted as long as the CC BY terms
> >were followed.
>
> Erk. They can't do that. The license is the entire offer, you can't add
> additional terms outside the license.
>
> By-2.0 8e:
>
> "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with
> respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements
> or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor
> shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any
> communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual
> written agreement of the Licensor and You. "
>
> - Rob.

That is how I saw things and wrote him a nice heads up to alert him to a 
possible problem. He seems to think the sublicense clause will cover the 
situation.

Perhaps it will if "royalty-free collection" has some special meaning in the 
industry (I am trying to find that out as well) but just for plain english, I 
could put together a collection of CC BY and BY-SA works and sell them and, 
so long as the buyers used them in keeping with the licenses, I don't see the 
legal problem.

So again, I gather he thinks he is clarifying the license. I am not yet sure. 
I think that, unless there is some accepted industry standard as to what 
rights a "royalty-free collection" must come with, this could be additional 
agreements which are outside the license and thus have no validity.

all the best,

drew