cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Re: [cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common License: Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?

From: Evan Prodromou <evan AT bad.dynu.ca>
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common License: Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:18:53 -0500

On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 10:34:24AM +0000, rob AT robmyers.org wrote:

> There is a difference between offering a warranty (which was in 1.0 and
> is a bad idea)

I just want to note that not everyone thinks it was a bad idea. I
think it's great, and I like this kind of clause in Open Source
licenses.

It's still entirely possible to use 1.0 licenses, and if you want that
kind of warranty provision, it's right now the only bet. Unless you
need something from the 2.0 or 2.5 licenses (like, say, group
attribution), I'd say use the 1.0 Attribution-ShareAlike.

~Evan

[cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common License: Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?, DeepNet, 03/24/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common License: Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?, Henri Sivonen, 03/24/2006
  - Re: [cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common License: Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?, rob, 03/24/2006
    - Re: [cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common License: Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?, Evan Prodromou, 03/24/2006
  - Re: [cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common License: Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?, DeepNet, 03/24/2006
    - Re: [cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common License:Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?, DeepNet, 03/24/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common License: Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?, Terry Hancock, 03/28/2006