Development of Creative Commons licenses

["DeepNet" <dan AT deepnettech.com>]

On further inspection of the older CC licenses, I've
found that the 1.0 Attribution (only) License seems
perfect for my needs (no changes/addendums required).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/

- Attribution is fine, and in fact I want to attribute the contributors.
- Licensor warrants Works are valid to submit. This is critical to me.
- No share-alike clauses, which I do not want on my Derived Works.

It even solves another problem I found on closer inspection
of the 2.5 CC licenses, in that the clause 8.g assigns the
jurisdiction of issues to the location of the Licensor, which is
not what I want... I want it to be the jurisdiction of the
Licensee (me), in my odd case. I see that 1.0 CC licenses
simply do not have jurisdiction notices, which is fine then.

I won't ask why the 2.5 licenses have steered away from the
direction so clearly... I'm sure there's a lot of politic involved!
But the 1.0 licenses are just fine for me.

I am including the full text of the license, not just a link, in my product,
on the assumption that since the license itself is
covered by the 1.0 Attribution license.

Thanks,

Dan Pronovost
dan AT deepnettech.com
DeepNet Technologies
www.DeepNetTech.com
www.HandheldBlackjack.com
www.SmartCraps.com
www.PokerDrillMaster.com
www.MagicScout.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DeepNet" <dan AT deepnettech.com>
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen AT iki.fi>; "Discussion on the Creative Commons 
license drafts"
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common 
License:Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?


> Thank you for the information Henri and Rob.. exactly what I needed
> to know.
>
> So one more question now that I know I have to add an addendum:
>
> - I notice that direct inclusion of the content of the 2.5 Attribution CC 
> license
> is discouraged. All the insertion instructions provide 'linkage' text, 
> rather
> than direct content. This is different from GNU, which includes encourages
> the inclusion of the actual license text and dissemination.
>
> - The CC license itself is under CC Attribution license 2.5, I see.
> So, if I want to include it's content directly, I thus can do so, correct
> (as long as I maintain it's copyright/ownership info)?
>
> - And, if I do include the license content directly, I can also modify it
> since the 2.5 Attribution license allows this? I know the alternative
> is to have two licenses... the original 2.5 CC, and an addendum, but
> I don't like that and it's messy.
>
> I'm no lawyer, but not including the actual license with the work seems a 
> mistake
> to me. What if the link to the license changes, or is not working? This 
> seems
> a weak point in the CC license.
>
> Also, Evan has pointed out that the 1.0 Share-Alike CC license clearly HAD
> such a clause in it regarding warrant from licensee to licensor.
> Now, I don't want to use it exactly, as I prefer the attribution-only
> aspects of the 2.5 CC license (I don't want the share-alike responsiblite 
> of the 1.0
> license, yet the attribution aspects in 1.0 are not clear, and I'm happy to 
> abide by them).
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan Pronovost
> dan AT deepnettech.com
> DeepNet Technologies
> www.DeepNetTech.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen AT iki.fi>
> To: "DeepNet" <dan AT deepnettech.com>; "Discussion on the Creative Commons 
> license drafts"
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] newbie question on Creative Common License: 
> Licensor Warranty of Rights Ownership?
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 2006, at 07:50, DeepNet wrote:
> >
> > > - I want to protect myself from people submitting works
> > > that they DO NOT have copyright ons (i.e. they submit
> > > someone elses work, and accept the CC license anyway).
> >
> > Then you should have an additional agreement with contributors.
> >
> > > - In effect, I would like the license to say something like,
> > > "Licensor warrants, to the best of their ability, that they
> > > own the copyright to the Work, or otherise have rights to
> > > the Work to allow this license to be valid"...
> >
> > This was in the 1.0 series and was removed. Putting it in the license
> > is a bad idea, because you would yourself end up granting a warranty
> > without consideration to random third parties.
> >
> > > - I've read the CC license generated above, and I don't
> > > see anywhere where the Licensor gaurantees this kind
> > > of thing to the Licensee?
> >
> > By design.
> >
> > > Can/Should I add a second agreement they
> > > must also accept that simple states this as an extra thing?
> >
> > Yes, you should do this separately.
> >
> > As usual: IANAL, TINLA.
> >
> > -- 
> > Henri Sivonen
> > hsivonen AT iki.fi
> > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>