Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>]

I thought about the same thing as drew did, and as Daniel point's out, 
if they can trust your words, I think that's fine. 

The other potential problem with this type of solution (adding words of 
clarification/interpretation/understanding) is its effects on 
downstream users, I think. If the licensor-licensee relation remains 
only between two parties, there will be less risk of miscommunication. 
But if many rounds of creating derivative works or delivering happen, 
do they have to also carry your words of clarification along? If not, 
does that mean downstream users can possibly ignore your wishes and 
simply follow CC-BY-NC as they think the courts would interpret? 
Can downstream users add their own clarification (slightly different 
from Daniel's initial words) that would govern the part they 
contributed? Should licensee check every upstream licensors' words 
of clarification to know what they mean by non-commercial (or other terms)? 

So if this convention of adding words of clarification becomes prevalent, 
I am afraid there will be increased level of uncertainty in general - 
a licensee cannot tell for sure what kind of extra clarifications 
apply to a particular work until he do a fair amount of research. 

I tend to think, perhaps naively, that it is license's job to be clear, 
so that licensors and licensees can focus on creation and sharing, not 
interpreting it or consulting with lawyers. But "non-commercial" is 
probably too complex to clearly and precisely define. And this license 
element turns out to be pretty popular. 

Still, it would be better for the license to draw some line than waiting 
for a lawsuit to happen, I tend to say. But I could be wrong. 


Please be reminded that I am not a lawyer.


Regards, 

Tomos

Daniel Carrera wrote:
>drew Roberts wrote:
>> Whenever I see efforts like this I think about the part in the license 
>> that 
>> tells the "user" that the license represents the whole agreement that they 
>> have and that no outside terms matter in relation to the license. (At 
>> least, 
>> that is how I have been reading that pert.)
>> 
>> Therefore, as a "user" I don't get much comfort from assurances that occur 
>> outside the license. If I am mistaken in this, I would love to learn how.
>
>I see.
>
>Well, in our case we're still doing that. We have the fortune of having 
>a trusting relationship with our customers (small company, nice people) 
>but I can see how this might not work in general.
>
>Cheers,
>Daniel.